Sex MIGHT not be wrong? Well then the only absolutely OK method of family planning is to abstain from intercourse - unless at least one of you has been sterilized.
Life At Conception
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
Sex MIGHT not be wrong? Well then the only absolutely OK method of family planning is to abstain from intercourse - unless at least one of you has been sterilized.
How does the first sentence relate to the second?
Technically, it's the rights recognized by our culture, even when he official government policy wishes otherwise. If the culture as a whole values freedom of religion, then religious persecutions are rare even when the government wishes otherwise.
You're not evaluating the argument objectively. If this is just about you being right, then by all means, have the last word. But if we're to have a meaningful debate, we must remain intellectually honest.
A woman also did not choose their blood pressure, or the color of their skin. What is your point? The pregnancy is an outcome of a decision they made. No amount of equivocation changes that fact. You act like a woman wakes up one morning, and jumps in terror as she finds out someone stuck a baby into her body while she slept.
All you're saying is that since the pregnancy is an inconvenience, it is within one's right to terminate it. That does not apply to any other analogous situation in real life. If that is the case, then killing anyone is acceptable, as long as I can come up with some "right" that his existence conflicts with.
And it is PERFECTLY acceptable to use one's faultless action to abridge their rights. If I get sick and fall behind on my financial commitments, I should expect to pay the late fees. If my foot accidently slips off the break pedal and I hit the car in front of me, I should expect to pay for the other person's damages. Similarly, if my choice to have sex results in its natural outcome, I should expect to carry it out.
I have yet to hear a single convincing justification of why one's inconvenience justifies killing another.
I guess it doesn't really relate, I'm just wondering exactly what you mean by "sex might not be wrong" - - do you mean that you haven't decided whether it's wrong or not? or that its wrong under some circumstances but not wrong under others? I'm trying to understand what you meant by that statement.
As to the second part of my post, I'm curious what your thoughts are on family planning. Particularly in light of what's quoted below.
And you won't. I'm pretty sure that NOTHING would justify it in your mind. But your mind is not my mind, and my mind might see things a little differently. Who's right? I don't know, so I will base my decisions on my own personal values. Simple as that.
I did not mean anything at all by including "might" in that sentence. It was just a stylistic choice. I don't think there's anything wrong with consensual sex.
As for values, I don't think it's relative. I think morality must be an objective system based in reality and on the principles of logic and causality. If we both agree on certain first principles, such as "aversion to harm", as OB and myself seem to, then there must be an answer to the question of which value is better at achieving a specific objective.
In other words, I think that the concepts of right and wrong are very real. I'm an atheist and I view morality as a man-made system inspired by social instincts, desire to survive, desire to live well, and other aspects of human existence. I thus think that it is our responsibility as moral beings to reach some sort of agreement on why something is, or isn't, moral.
GVC
Well-Known Member
********. It was the government then that guaranteed rights too. Or do you actually think that everyone has enforceable rights in the absence of some sort of government? Or worse, are you claiming that the average person living in America had more rights in 1776 than today?
I don't really want to get sucked into this cluster****. Just found your post filled with historical revisionism and other self serving ******** amusing.
Last edited:
government trying to enforce rights is one thing they should do, not that any government has ever done a very good job at it.
people have generally preferred personal weapons. American aborigines had bows/arrows, axes. Those who also had horses did a little better. We had guns and some other stuff when we fought the British for our rights, when the overlord governance was denying Americans the common rights of British citizens under British law.
The theoretical existence of inalienable rights possessed by mankind by the simple fact of being human was a the thesis of the Declaration of Independence, and it was further asserted by the "rebels" that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I don't think the Queen has yet conceded that point. In Canada, language like that is just irrelevant, because Canadians have not yet undertaken to affirm their natural rights.
A lot of Americans are still willing to enforce their ideas of "rights" with patriotic armed defense. And that is why some folks really really want to take personal weapons, perhaps incrementally but with the relentless ultimate goal being total disarmament of the people.
I have said it before, but the fact remains, we have no rights we will not defend personally. The government at its best is just supposed to do that for us through laws that make infringement on our rights punishable crimes. Government at its worst is the ultimate criminal in destroying human liberty, human life, private property, and every happiness humans can desire.
I agree with your last paragraph, though with respect to the first part of your post, I do think values are relative. People of different religious beliefs, for instance, have values relative to those religious beliefs.
With respect to the question at hand, one issue I have is the matter of those who believe that they have a right to force their beliefs on me. If a pro-life woman gets pregnant and does not feel capable of raising a child, she should not be forced to terminate her pregnancy. Similarly, a pro-choice woman in the same situation should not be forced to carry the pregnancy to term.
There are all sorts of "slippery slope" questions that can come into play here. Should a pregnant woman be forced to quit smoking because of the harm it can cause to the fetus? What about alcohol consumption? And men are not immune either, what about second hand smoke? Or other life-style choices that men make that can have deleterious effects on their future children. I'll be honest, I have mixed feelings about these issues, but in the end, my priority would generally go to protecting the rights of the born over the rights of the unborn.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Language like that is irrelevant everywhere. As you've stated, you only have the rights that you and yours can defend. Not even the founders believed in inalienable rights for all people. Nonsense.
So you were editing while I was replying.
Don't get me wrong, you might be an OK dude, but like all of us, influenced by your times and culture. The reason the colonists south of Canada rebelled was because they were being treated horribly by the Brit overlords while there was an ongoing revolution in expectations among the people. People began to demand better government, and after being rebuffed in civil appeals to the King, placed their lives and all they had on the line in rebelling. At that point in time, they had absolutely no rights in the eyes of the British government, and were marked as treasonous rebels worthy of death. The only way "Americans" exclusive of Canadians or Indians got the privilege of setting up a government of their own was by winning against the greatest army and navy on the planet.
I'm not especially informed on Canadian history, but I think the reason the Canadians didn't join in our rebellion was simply because, as recent French subjects, the British were treating them better, being fully apprehensive of potential civil unrest. With us, it was just total contempt for the people.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Perhaps consider their record protecting those inalienable rights of the people who lived in America. Anyway, I'm done with this. Have fun with your good ol' days discussion.
those "good ol' days" included the unwillingness of southern states to quit slavery already, and some real animosities with the Indians who fought with the British during the Revolution. And even Abraham Lincoln didn't speak up for the rights of the Indians. But for themselves the rebels claimed their rights, and others have been stepping forward to claim their own inalienable rights. And people are really not done with this idea.
GVC
Well-Known Member
In other words, the powers that be "have devalued us to the extent that we have no rights whatsoever except what [they] deign to let us have" today, yesterday and forever. Can't let the religious conservatives, hell bent on punishing everyone who doesn't bend the knee and fall in line, win. Glad we agree. Onward and upward.
So happy to be in Canada.
In the absence of oppression individual rights exist. In the wilderness, on an island, in a community, if rights are not oppressed they exist. No effort is required to create them. A human, being human, in the absence of oppression has individual rights. I guess in that context we would simply call them abilities. In an oppressive environment they are generally referred to as rights.
GVC
Well-Known Member
So...people are free to act as they choose until other people get in the way? No ****.
In reality (that is, not in libertarian fantasy land), we live with other people (like, in communities...the things y'all loath...sorta like teenage girls), and only have the "rights" we collectively choose and work to protect.
In reality (that is, not in libertarian fantasy land), we live with other people (like, in communities...the things y'all loath...sorta like teenage girls), and only have the "rights" we collectively choose and work to protect.
I tried to rep you over in a game thread and got a strange flag popping up.. . . . no not the Canadian flag, but saying something about a security anomally. . . . . did you have me on "ignore" or anything? It was pos rep, and when I get some more rep privileges I'll pass on some pos rep.
but hey, now that you've reduced this idea to practical terms and got me rolling on the floor laughing, I can sorta see your point. I'll try again to give you some pos rep when my rep timeout expires. . . . .
In all my life, I've never made this connection, but the way you said it just opens my eyes to the truth. Fascists, warlords, nationalists, emperors, tinhorn dictators killing their political dissidents, and robber baron cartelists buying government officials and getting their way, and teenage girls. All the evil mankind has ever invented. . . . .
and here yesterday I was discussing how testosterone generates male idiocy. Man, it all comes together now.
Guys, let's keep this discovery on the Q. T. . I know I'd damn well better not tell my wife I've finally found the key to understanding women. It'll be hard to do, but I'd better go on, pretending only now of course, to be the idiot who's given her her way on every issue she has ever had.
Rights???? hah!!!!! Marriage has always been the very antithesis of "Rights".