440 replies to this topic

[CANADIEN]

God has no love for homosexual sex. God has no love for abortion which is the slaughter of babies.

God has no love for racism, bigotry or opinions like "the less Jews and Muslims, the better" either.

[Mr.Canada]

God has no love for racism, bigotry or opinions like "the less Jews and Muslims, the better" either.

I'm neither a racist or a bigot. If I am, prove it please. If you cannot, you're breaking the rules of MLW.

Let's try to stay on topic of Abortion Reform, which is what this topic is called. It's at the top of the page.

[charter.rights]

God has no love for homosexual sex. God has no love for abortion which is the slaughter of babies.

You think Jesus would partake in abortions do you?

Wrong.

John 8:15

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

Romans 2:1

1Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

We are taught therefore, that The Christ forgives all and without judgment condemns no one. What comes of the flesh and what lives and dies as the flesh has no matter to us for we are of the Spirit. Sin is dead to us that have accepted the way of Christ, since sin died with Him and our life arose with Him free of sin, such that we can no longer see sin because we no longer recognize the flesh.

[Renegade]

I do no such thing. I post my opinions just like everyone else does here. If my words are so powerful as to sway peoples opinion so easily perhaps their position wasn't as strong as they once thought.

Do you deny that you support legislation which would impose your standards on others?

[Smallc]

I'm neither a racist or a bigot.

So your statements about non white immigrants, muslims, jews, homosexuals, and people that have abortions don't count?

[Mr.Canada]

Do you deny that you support legislation which would impose your standards on others?

Nope I don't. It's called opinion. Everyone does the same thing. You're against wide open abortion too, so what?

[Mr.Canada]

So your statements about non white immigrants, muslims, jews, homosexuals, and people that have abortions don't count?

If what I had said about any of those topics were racist I'd be banned.

So what? We cannot even discuss those things anymore? Or else we're racists or bigots to even bring up issues...Wow.

[Smallc]

Nope I don't.

Ok, I'll take you at your word.

You're against wide open abortion too

Wait, I guess I can't, because this sentence seems to contradict the first. It implies that you are willing to push your beliefs on others through legislation.

[Mr.Canada]

Ok, I'll take you at your word.
Wait, I guess I can't, because this sentence seems to contradict the first. It implies that you are willing to push your beliefs on others through legislation.

Everyone pushes their beliefs on others. Public school teachers do it every day.

Is there some reason you're being such a jackass today smallc? If you don't like me just put me on ignore ok.

Edited by Mr.Canada, 10 January 2009 - 12:51 PM.

[CANADIEN]

I'm neither a racist or a bigot. If I am, prove it please. If you cannot, you're breaking the rules of MLW.

Shall we start with the homophobic postings, the postings stating than less Jews and Muslims means more opportunities to convert souls, or the postings about immigrants and how it is OK to want to have nothing to do with people who are different?

Let's try to stay on topic of Abortion Reform, which is what this topic is called. It's at the top of the page.

Does this means that you will no longer talk about things like "rampant" homosexuality, drug uses, addictions on this thread?

[charter.rights]

Everyone pushes their beliefs on others. Public school teachers do it every day.

Is there some reason you're being such a jackass today smallc? If you don't like me just put me on ignore ok.

Wrong. Pushing your opinion on someone is not the same thing as discussing it. Holding an opinion that judges others because of their ethnicity or race or religion IS racism, whether you wnat to believe it or not. If you hold these beliefs and in the face of proof otherwise that your myths are incorrect, then that not only makes you a racist but more likely a bigot.

[Smallc]

Public school teachers do it every day.

If by teachers pushing beliefs on others, you mean teaching, then yes.

Is there some reason you're being such a jackass today smallc?

I am being no such thing. I am taking you to task for your reversals of position, your inaccurate statements, and the posts you make that I disagree with. I wasn't aware that such things autmatically make one a "jackass."

[WIP]

Well nothing is absolute in that the government can override any individual right. Personally I think that is simply wrong for the state to forcibly extract my organs without my permission.

Instead of looking at organ donation through the lens of government vs. individual rights, look at it from the perspective of social responsibility. Whether or not it is a personal right to refuse to sign your organ donor card, should you have a responsibility to do it for the good of society? And if not, what reasons do you have for not being an organ donor besides saying "I don't want to?"

In a similar vein, the movement against vaccinations for children is growing in numbers thanks to the work of idiots like Jenny McCarthy, who blames her son's autism on vaccines. Up till now the medical community hasn't worried too much about a few cranks and religious fanatics who refuse to vaccinate their children, because as long as they are a minority, they are protected by the effects of Herd Immunity. But in areas where significant numbers are not getting vaccinated, the diseases they prevent, are on the increase. Should vaccinating your children be a private individual right, or a social responsibility?

BTW, how would you feel if this "greater good" argument was used to limit or ban abortion. Say the countries birth rate was very low and there were a large supply of willing adoptive parents, can the state ban abortions and force women to carry a pregnancy to term for the "greater good"?

It could, but in an overpopulated world, using up finite resources too fast, it's difficult to make an argument for increasing birth rates in the few countries with declining populations. The only countries where demographics presents a serious problem are ones like Japan, that refuse to allow immigration from overpopulated countries to help balance out the demographics.

States can choose between living with a shortage or living with the risk of abuse due to people selling organs. A far worse choice is for the state to forcibly extract organs from people. BTW, why wait till they die? The state can pull eveyone's spare kidney to feed the donation bank.

Because a living person has a clear interest in having two kidneys to ensure the opportunity of a long, healthy life.....a dead person does not, simple as that!

What ia "moral obligation" is is subjective. Some people feel that havesting organs out of a dead body is sacreligious. Who are you to impose your moral standard on each individual?

Okay, now why is taking an organ from a dead person a sacrilege, and is it any more valid than the fear of Jehovah's Witnesses of letting their children have blood transfusions or the Christian Science church refusing virtually all medical procedures in favour of prayer.

[Molly]

WIP... everything about your perspective makes the assumption that organ donation= public good.

A young woman- a health care professional- refuses to sign her donor card, and when pressed, explains that, while she would be willing to donate selected body bits, there is no means by which she could approve or disapprove of said donations on a case-by-case basis after her own death, so her only real option is 'not at all'.

She explains that while some transplants are a definite plus, others simply add additional years of illness to a non-contributing life, and that, in her opinion, isn't good for anyone, not even the patient. Her place in the world is to increase wellness, not extend illness.

I'm still mulling that one over, but I do see her point.

That means that you can't assume to know folks' motivations (or assume that they are frivolous), and also that if something is to be justified in the name of 'greater good', it must be first established that greater good would be served by it.

[Renegade]

Instead of looking at organ donation through the lens of government vs. individual rights, look at it from the perspective of social responsibility. Whether or not it is a personal right to refuse to sign your organ donor card, should you have a responsibility to do it for the good of society? And if not, what reasons do you have for not being an organ donor besides saying "I don't want to?"

I'm not disputing that it is a moral responsiblity. What I maintain is that the enforcement of moral responsiblity should be left to ones conscience not to government.

In a similar vein, the movement against vaccinations for children is growing in numbers thanks to the work of idiots like Jenny McCarthy, who blames her son's autism on vaccines. Up till now the medical community hasn't worried too much about a few cranks and religious fanatics who refuse to vaccinate their children, because as long as they are a minority, they are protected by the effects of Herd Immunity. But in areas where significant numbers are not getting vaccinated, the diseases they prevent, are on the increase. Should vaccinating your children be a private individual right, or a social responsibility?

It is a more complex question than I wish to address in this thread. It is complicated by the fact that the consequences of not vaccinating extend beyond the health of the person and cause determental effects on others. For example by passiong on disease to others and causing the public health system to incur additonal burdens.

It could, but in an overpopulated world, using up finite resources too fast, it's difficult to make an argument for increasing birth rates in the few countries with declining populations. The only countries where demographics presents a serious problem are ones like Japan, that refuse to allow immigration from overpopulated countries to help balance out the demographics.

Except societies don't take a world view. Many societies take a local view. For example Quebec is implementing social policies to increase its birth rate. In your rationale Quebec woudl be justified in implementing policies such as restricting abortion to increase birth rates in the name of "social good".

Because a living person has a clear interest in having two kidneys to ensure the opportunity of a long, healthy life.....a dead person does not, simple as that!

Yes but society somehow determined that the need for donation of the second kidney was greater that an individuals need for a second kidney, by your rationale the state can take that kidney. Our society doesn't even make blood donation mandatory so clearly your rationale of social good overriding individual rights is not prevelant in society and only occurs in truly exceptional circumstances.

Okay, now why is taking an organ from a dead person a sacrilege, and is it any more valid than the fear of Jehovah's Witnesses of letting their children have blood transfusions or the Christian Science church refusing virtually all medical procedures in favour of prayer.

Because religion is irrational and individuals religious rights are guaranteeed even if it is irrational.