d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Abortion
Prev1272829303157Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 5 2021 11:36am
Quote (IceMage @ Dec 5 2021 05:07am)
That makes no sense at all. Political questions often involve moral positions, whether it's about abortion, healthcare, immigration, or tax policy.

All I hear from you is complaining that I'm not discussing what you want me to discuss. Topics most important to you aren't necessarily most important to others.


If you look back you will realize you haven't discussed the topic... at all. You've preached about abortion and actively pivoted the conversation away from the subject whenever possible.

That little bouncer is doing a great job.



The government is not in the business of legislating morality. If it was we wouldn't value freedom. We would have the government in all of our bedrooms. Government legislating morality and government respecting freedoms are fundamnetally antithetical.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on Dec 5 2021 11:38am
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Dec 5 2021 11:44am
This post is a violation of the site rules and appropriate action was taken.

Quote (IceMage @ Dec 5 2021 03:34am)
Because the use of contraceptives is immoral, and doing evil so that good may come of it is wrong.


what?? Next step don't masturbate or you will go blind..
edit.
don't pull out-- I guess all the souls of men prior to the catholic church are now burning in hell.
Don't get a BJ from your wife.
etc. etc. You are full blown religious crazy on this one. I don't even think the Pope holds onto this BS anymore LOL

This post was edited by theCrossbones on Dec 5 2021 11:49am
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 5 2021 11:48am
Quote (WickedDarkJuggalos @ Dec 5 2021 07:13am)
^icemage this fucking clown doesn’t even want to acknowledge the constitution or the fact that killing people is just wrong, and that isn’t a religious view.

Or the fact that the separation of church and state means not condemning other religions from being practiced. Has nothing to do with moral values not being a thought when creating laws.


I was feeling kinda meh this morning, but you stalking me and gossiping about me just made my day. Living rent free in your head.
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Dec 5 2021 12:08pm
Quote (IceMage @ Dec 5 2021 03:07am)


God doesn't have one moral law for Catholics and a separate one for everyone else. What policies do I support that promote "grave sins"? Maybe there are some that indirectly do, but promoting contraceptives is directly promoting grave sin, so I can't support it. That doesn't mean I want to ban contraceptives or anything like that. People can make their free choice, but government schools shouldn't be offering them up to people.


There's a reason why Pope Benedict effectively supported the use of condoms for HIV infected people in Africa: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html. At some point, even an organization as rigid as the Catholic Church, came to realize that they were doing more harm than good on this specific issue. In addition, the Church also said somewhat recently that you should not try and convert Jews.

Anyway, I think that we would have to abolish ALL forms of sex education (besides abstinence) since the Catholic Church is against sex outside of marriage. You would also have to be against Medicare/Medicaid/VA from covering birth control, sex change operations, etc. Then there's the balance of national security, pressing charges in criminal/civil court, etc. There's a whole litany of issues where if we went the Catholic route, society would end up worse. I suggest you read up on how Catholic SCOTUS justices handle the balance as well as Church teaching on living in a secular society. I think if we take your policy approaches when it comes to abortion, you have to concede that you're going to end up with MORE abortions. That's fine if you want to be ideologically pure but I find that repulsive since I'm a pragmatist.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 5 2021 09:36am)

The government is not in the business of legislating morality. If it was we wouldn't value freedom. We would have the government in all of our bedrooms. Government legislating morality and government respecting freedoms are fundamnetally antithetical.


It absolutely is. There's a reason we have the FCC, indecency laws, etc. We've been trying to balance the legislation of morality with respecting freedoms since this country was created.
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 5 2021 12:09pm
Quote (thundercock @ Dec 5 2021 12:08pm)
It absolutely is. There's a reason we have the FCC, indecency laws, etc. We've been trying to balance the legislation of morality with respecting freedoms since this country was created.


Incidentally sure, but those "moral regulations" are coated in societal concern. "The children won't develop properly if they're exposed to indecency".

The government has no business regulating something on purely moral grounds.
Member
Posts: 26,753
Joined: Apr 18 2007
Gold: 1,246.69
Dec 5 2021 12:15pm
The fix for mass slaughtering of lil turdfants is male birth control

But the cheapest most effective safe way is testosterone
But testosterone makes men more manly, thus less controllable by the govment so we can’t have that
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Dec 5 2021 12:19pm
Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 5 2021 10:09am)
Incidentally sure, but those "moral regulations" are coated in societal concern. "The children won't develop properly if they're exposed to indecency".

The government has no business regulating something on purely moral grounds.


I suppose it depends on your definition of "morality" then. I think everyone approaches morality from a reduction of harm perspective, both at an individual level and societal level. For example, people who opposed gay marriage legitimately believed that we would impose great harm on society. Sure, they are misguided, but they are still coming at it from a harm minimization perspective. How should we quantify harm?
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Dec 5 2021 12:22pm
Quote (thundercock @ Dec 5 2021 12:19pm)
I suppose it depends on your definition of "morality" then. I think everyone approaches morality from a reduction of harm perspective, both at an individual level and societal level. For example, people who opposed gay marriage legitimately believed that we would impose great harm on society. Sure, they are misguided, but they are still coming at it from a harm minimization perspective. How should we quantify harm?


Not everybody approaches it that way. IceMage has said as much in this thread. Even when it would reduce harm, he has no interest in things like contraceptives because they violate his morality.
Member
Posts: 49,289
Joined: Jun 18 2006
Gold: 11.77
Dec 5 2021 12:42pm
Quote (toyake @ Dec 5 2021 07:40am)
Why do you believe that that separation is immoral? Do you hold the same view for all natural urges?

If it's chilly out is it immoral to forgo a jacket? Is fasting immoral?

Was it immoral for God to sacrifice his son to save the souls of sinners? Is that not committing an immoral act so that a greater good may come of it?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_theology_of_sexuality

Quote (fender @ Dec 5 2021 07:47am)
stop lying. i don't want YOU to do anything. you are entitled to your religious beliefs. judges and politicians, however, should not make laws to pander to them - not in a secular state. it's incredibly dishonest of you to repeatedly misrepresent that, in order to portray yourself as a victim. it's not a difficult distinction, i know you understand it.

you should be well aware that there are plenty of people, in fact a vast majority, who disagree with you on abortion. they value a woman's right to self-determination over the rights of a fetus, and there are plenty of good medical, legal, social, and moral reasons for that, many of which i'm sure you are familiar with, even though you obviously reject them.

what it comes down to is that you feel that your specific religious views are morally superior, and should therefore be made into law. the first part you're entitled to, the second part should not happen in a secular state.
courts full of religious zealots (appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote by millions btw), manipulating the law to reflect the moral and religious beliefs of a minority, is not following the secular principle, and also fundamentally undemocratic.


fun fact: i grew up in a catholic family, was a catholic myself (until i developed critical thinking), but despite most of my extended family being catholics (and generally against abortion, like myself), i don't know of anyone entitled enough to assume that their religious beliefs should determine the lives and choices of strangers - at least not openly. the reason i'm telling you this is because i noticed how you repeatedly point to THE catholic teaching, making it sound like you're not fully responsible for your views, like you had no choice because at some point in your life you committed to that specific denomination.

obviously there's no reasoning with religious fundamentalists in terms of morals, the only thing i can hope you take away from this is that your beliefs should not be forced on others. you don't live in a theocracy (yet)...


I don't see that as a meaningful distinction. You now say I can vote my moral conscience, which is influenced by my religious beliefs, but those elected to public office can't. They have to put aside their moral positions, while non-believers, because they don't have organized religious beliefs, don't. It sounds like a violation of religious freedom. Why do you want to oppress us?

There's plenty of areas where my moral positions(informed by religious belief) shouldn't be enforced by the state. Contraception should not be made illegal for instance. I value a free society where people can make a variety of choices. But protecting human life is the most basic duty of the state, so obviously abortion should be illegal.

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 5 2021 12:27pm)
This may be the single dumbest position you hold lol


no u

Quote (NetflixAdaptationWidow @ Dec 5 2021 12:36pm)
If you look back you will realize you haven't discussed the topic... at all. You've preached about abortion and actively pivoted the conversation away from the subject whenever possible.

That little bouncer is doing a great job.

The government is not in the business of legislating morality. If it was we wouldn't value freedom. We would have the government in all of our bedrooms. Government legislating morality and government respecting freedoms are fundamnetally antithetical.


The topic of abortion has numerous sub-topics.

Again, you're acting as if political issues don't have moral content. They do. Your moral positions influence how you vote.

Quote (thundercock @ Dec 5 2021 01:08pm)
There's a reason why Pope Benedict effectively supported the use of condoms for HIV infected people in Africa: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html. At some point, even an organization as rigid as the Catholic Church, came to realize that they were doing more harm than good on this specific issue. In addition, the Church also said somewhat recently that you should not try and convert Jews.

Anyway, I think that we would have to abolish ALL forms of sex education (besides abstinence) since the Catholic Church is against sex outside of marriage. You would also have to be against Medicare/Medicaid/VA from covering birth control, sex change operations, etc. Then there's the balance of national security, pressing charges in criminal/civil court, etc. There's a whole litany of issues where if we went the Catholic route, society would end up worse. I suggest you read up on how Catholic SCOTUS justices handle the balance as well as Church teaching on living in a secular society. I think if we take your policy approaches when it comes to abortion, you have to concede that you're going to end up with MORE abortions. That's fine if you want to be ideologically pure but I find that repulsive since I'm a pragmatist.


I can't read that article, but I think I found what you're talking about. I don't believe the Pope was effectively supporting the use of condoms in Africa, but even if you argue he was, it's based on the first-order effect of prevention of a deadly disease, while giving condoms to high schoolers is obviously for contraceptive use.

Kids grow up and get married, right? Why would it be wrong to offer sex education? Catholics should pick their battles wisely because we live in a secular society, but if some of these issues are put to a referendum, I'm voting based on my moral conscience. If someone wants birth control they can pay for it themselves, unless the medication is being used for a legit reason.
Member
Posts: 30,165
Joined: Sep 10 2004
Gold: 0.00
Warn: 30%
Dec 5 2021 02:07pm
Quote (IceMage @ 5 Dec 2021 19:42)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_theology_of_sexuality



I don't see that as a meaningful distinction. You now say I can vote my moral conscience, which is influenced by my religious beliefs, but those elected to public office can't. They have to put aside their moral positions, while non-believers, because they don't have organized religious beliefs, don't. It sounds like a violation of religious freedom. Why do you want to oppress us?

There's plenty of areas where my moral positions(informed by religious belief) shouldn't be enforced by the state. Contraception should not be made illegal for instance. I value a free society where people can make a variety of choices. But protecting human life is the most basic duty of the state, so obviously abortion should be illegal.



no u



The topic of abortion has numerous sub-topics.

Again, you're acting as if political issues don't have moral content. They do. Your moral positions influence how you vote.



I can't read that article, but I think I found what you're talking about. I don't believe the Pope was effectively supporting the use of condoms in Africa, but even if you argue he was, it's based on the first-order effect of prevention of a deadly disease, while giving condoms to high schoolers is obviously for contraceptive use.

Kids grow up and get married, right? Why would it be wrong to offer sex education? Catholics should pick their battles wisely because we live in a secular society, but if some of these issues are put to a referendum, I'm voting based on my moral conscience. If someone wants birth control they can pay for it themselves, unless the medication is being used for a legit reason.


now you're just trying to construct some bogus counter-charge... "aCktsHuaLLy, yOu aRe tHe oPPreSsoR fOr nOt LeTTinG mE rEsTriCt yOuR RiGhtS!!1!". it's absurd.
politicians and judges not shaping the law to conform to the religious sensibilities of a minority is an easy distinction to make from allowing people (including those politicians btw) their private beliefs. you can't possibly be dumb enough not to get that.

feeling and saying that abortions are immoral is ok - restricting them from people who don't share the views of you fundamentalist zealots is not ok. really simple.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1272829303157Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll