Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,007
- 572
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Atreus21: We have the right not be slaves because of a constitutional amendment protecting it.
M: No, we are protected by the constitution, but the right is fundamental, inalienable and universal.
The right is universal, I agree. But it's only recently, as in within the last 150 years, that we were made aware of it. This indicates to me that, since we've been wrong before, there may be other universal rights that we are currently unaware of and infringing upon. Namely the rights of unborn humans.
A: The slavery of women you mention is a simple slavery to nature, to which we are all subjected. You could just as easily say we are slaves to urinate. It's a natural result of drinking, or at least consuming something. Women are slaves to their uteruses in the same manner. Pregnancy is a natural result of having unprotected sex; it's what the act of sexual intercourse is designed to bring about. Just because someone is unprepared for a natural consequence to their actions doesn't give them the right to say it's like slavery.
M: We are not all so subjected. Only those who are accidentally women. Pregnancy is one consequence of rape. You are saying that a child who is raped has to have the baby if the rape causes a pregnancy. How holy of you. And why are people responsible for irresponsibility. If they were responsible they would be responsible no? You just want to punish people who want out of the consequences of their actions. How irresponsible of you. You're probably a male full of judgment and testosterone driven anger. You are in the grips of a hallucination that a fetus is a person and your delusion has made you a prick. I say fuck you and your beliefs, no? I want to be like you too.
We are all subject to natural processes, such as aging. We will all eventually die. Women, because of their anatomy, have a particular role in nature. Only they can give birth. Regarding the rape argument, my stance remains the same for the same reason, by asking the following sequence of questions: Who is responsible for this girl's pregnancy? Because she was forced to have sex, the rapist is responsible. Who should bear the consequences of this? Certainly the rapist. How then can we establish that the child, however created, bears any responsibility for this crime? It's harsh, I grant. But it seems the most just resolution, because justice seeks to punish the guilty, not the innocent.
I very much want people to be held accountable for their actions, responsible or irresponsible. I don't call for punishment, only that they be held to the same standard as anyone else. If I were a male driven by anger, I'd be insulting you, yet it is you who have been insulting me.
When anything unfavorable happens to anyone, they immediately look to assign blame to the responsible party. That, I think, is the basic search for justice. Because pregnancy to women in this example is unfavorable, there IS cause to blame. Dealing with an unwanted child by killing it is not dealing with it. It's irresponsibility. Dealing with it would be accepting the consequence of your actions.A: This is why the abstinence idea is so important. If you have no intention of getting pregnant, and you have sex using some sort of birth control, which fails, who is to blame for you getting pregnant?
M: Obviously nobody is to blame because there's nothing to cause blame about. You do what you can not to get pregnant and deal with it if you do.
A: At the end of the day, it was you who decided, with full knowledge of the possible consequences, to play the odds; to do the singular act which alone can create babies, and you created a baby. That is squarely your responsibility, therefore.
M: I am at cause. That creates no responsibility because there is no obligation. I don't have to protect myself from pregnancy if I am a woman just because you think I do. Sorry, fuck you, again since that's what you want to do with me with your religious morality.
There's a simple line of reasoning here. Woman knows she can get pregnant. Woman does not want to get pregnant. Woman knowingly does the very act which will get her pregnant anyway. Woman gets pregnant. She made a conscious decision to take a risk, and now she is responsible for her decision. That's seems pretty clear to me. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with religious morality.
I don't understand.A: You can't cry foul because of a self-inflicted wound. You can't stand in the middle of an interstate and say, "If someone hits me, I'm the last person to blame."
M: Hit somebody in the middle of an intersection and see what happens. There is no foul. It's all in your head.
This implicitly contradicts something you said at the beginning. In response to my assertion that the right not to be a slave was granted in the constitution, you said that this right was universal and inalienable, outside of the constitutions jurisdiction. Yet here you say that it is the government that defines a person. Shouldn't the definition of a person be just as universal and inalienable as the right not to be a slave, since being a slave means you're assumed not to be human? If we extended rights only to those who met the legal definition of a person, then slaves were only human when we passed the 14th amendment, and that's obviously not the case. The truth is they were always human, and we just took forever to admit it to ourselves.A: My rights do end where another's begin, as you say. Regrettably, people don't extend that ethos to unborn children.
M: That is exactly what I said. They don't extend those rights until they meet the legal definition of person.
A: No one has a right to kill an innocent, let alone their own child.
M: We are not talking about a child or an innocent person. It's a matter of legal definition, one that is secular and human made as only we can have under our Constitution.
Same as above.
Good.A: Lastly, I don't understand this detestation of religion with which so many people on the left are seized. Ironically, it's irrational.
M: Couldn't agree more.
Same as above.There's a simple reason that religion is a good thing: Without it, there are no intrinsic rights.
M: But of course there are. Rights ARE intrinsic, then depend on nothing.
I agree.A: Without it, your right not to be murdered is only good so far as the governments ability to protect it; that is, people wouldn't care about murdering you if they thought they could get away with it. Yet that is not the case.
M: Don't be silly. I have no doubt in my mind at all that I could get away with murder but I have much better reasons not to kill anybody than those you provide. I would be violating their right to life. If I were to kill somebody, the act would make me a piece of shit because it would be a confession that I am too small and worthless to live in their presence. It would be an admission that I can't face up to my emotions and my responsibilities as a person. I would paint a fuck me right across my forehead. If I act out of my feelings of inferiority I actually become inferior and not just in my feelings. Ain't gonna happen.
Again, I agree.A: It's not because I fear the government that I don't murder people. It's because I believe it is objectively illegal; it is apart from the government's jurisdiction. This offers to me a very simple argument of why religion is a good thing, in general.
M: Well I can live with being objectively illegal, but I'll be damned if I condemn my own soul by proving my worthlessness in actions. You see, with or without God there is only God's truth or the truth of those who aspire to be what they can.
[/quote]