Hugo Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 The trouble with this notion is it assumes all things are equal All are equal before the law, Blackdog, or should be. Or do you think we should change that, and make inequality before the law our new watchword, according to "pressures or economic circumstances"? Do you think people with higher IQs, or a college degree, should get "less forgiveness from society" than those who didn't? Does the fat high-school dropout get to sue McDonalds, while the fat honours graduate gets his case thrown out? And I wonder how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion Have you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 All are equal before the law, Blackdog, or should be. Or do you think we should change that, and make inequality before the law our new watchword, according to "pressures or economic circumstances"?Do you think people with higher IQs, or a college degree, should get "less forgiveness from society" than those who didn't? Does the fat high-school dropout get to sue McDonalds, while the fat honours graduate gets his case thrown out? Equal before the law refers to the treatment we are accorded by societies legal bodies. However, those laws aren't absoulte: f'r instance, judges often recognize mitigating circumstances when deciding case outcomes for individuals. Society recognizes the limits of these circumstances. It also recognizes the limitations of personal responsibility and attempts to strike a balance when formulating policie staht affect us all. I don't see how this is such a radical concept. But then, I see things in grey, not black and white. QUOTEÂ And I wonder how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion Have you? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Yes. No, you haven't. According to you, it's a woman's choice, which means you didn't make any decision. Advised, possibly, decided, no. Equal before the law refers to the treatment we are accorded by societies legal bodies. However, those laws aren't absoulte So why does that mean that people should be able to cash in on smoking or eating badly, or expect the taxpayer to pay for their fourth abortion? I don't see what is so disagreeable about my argument. If you cross the street and get run over, that was hardly a mistake and I don't mind my tax money being used for that medical treatment. I'd like to think that I'd get the same if it were me (and it could be). But if you smoke 20 a day and get cancer, too bad, you should have quit or just never started (and don't tell me that in this day and age any smoker is blissfully unaware of the risks - they are stated on every single cigarette packet in very bold text and pictures). Why should you get millions from the tobacco company - to reward your stupidity? And please, find me a teenager who is unaware that sex makes babies. Anyone raised in such a convent-like environment isn't a candidate for lots of casual sex anyway. Or an adult who thinks that junk food is just as healthy as fruit and salad. Why do you think it's called "junk food" in common parlance? If you make your regular diet from something called "junk food", expect problems, just as if you make your regular car purchases from a category entitled "beaters." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 don't see how this is such a radical concept. But then, I see things in grey, not black and white. Actually thats totally false BD, you do see things in black and white. We on one side think that individuals, not society should be responsible, you on the other hand think society is responsible and not the individual. Had you said that people should have one grace and then they are on their own, that would be living in your grey area, but you like to use any excuse available to make society pay. No matter how many screws up a person makes, you will be there to pardon them with some mitigating circumstances. Course you make that "philosophers" stone casting argument. But you are forgetting that we are not excluding ourselves from having stones cast against ourselves, we realize that the stones hurt and we avoid a repeat of that action. See you are the one who likes to avoid having stones cast at you, admit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Abortions are most common among low income women, who also have the least access to birth control and sex education. And self-righteous people like you are happy kicking them when they're down. So you seem to think a "low income person" or better yet, the "common folk" don't have the brains to say NO? I'm sure low income people without a university education can figure out were babies come from and how to prevent it...... The trouble with this notion is it assumes all things are equal: that all individuals have the capacity to make 100 per cent informed decisions and that every decision is uncoloured by social pressures or economic circumstances. Which is seldom the case.It's unrealistsic and, above all, mean-spirited. So is it wrong to punish a murder that doesn't have a university degree? gimmie a break And I wonder how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion, or have never made a mistake that society has covered for. I'll wager none of you are so pure. I'm sure that most of us that are against abortions, have NEVER had to deal with an abortion, BECAUSE, we don't believe in them.......yeah jive? Fair enough. But i don't see a lot of harper's proposals as being "barely adequate". A 52 per cent increase in the size of the military is not an upgrade: it's a complete revamping. If the majority of Canadians want to become isolationists and stop all forms of forgein trade and policy, then fine, let's build a Swedish type armed forces and just stay out of everbodies buisness, but be prepaired, we spend about 1.1% of our GDP on defence, Sweden spends twice as much....... Or, if you want to maintain a presence on the world stage as to that of our current level, but without the aid of treaties such as NORAD or NATO, be prepaired to pay in the same ballpark as China (over 4%) or India (about 2.5%) ........ Either way, of the three choices we have, staying within NATO and NORAD is the cheaper option, as it allows our defence dollar to go way further then if we went it alone or started a policy of retrenchment....... And the cost that Harper is going to have to pay is peanuts in the big scheme of things.......we should be so lucky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 So you seem to think a "low income person" or better yet, the "common folk" don't have the brains to say NO? I'm sure low income people without a university education can figure out were babies come from and how to prevent it...... Statistsics show that low-income people are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies and less likey to use contraceptives. So is it wrong to punish a murder that doesn't have a university degree? gimmie a break Funny, but I didn't say that. Funnier still how asking people for understanding and compassion for the fellow man is greeted with such scorn. I'm sure that most of us that are against abortions, have NEVER had to deal with an abortion, BECAUSE, we don't believe in them.......yeah jive? Wouldn't have anything to do with, oh, not becoming or getting someone else pregnant, would it? Actually thats totally false BD, you do see things in black and white. We on one side think that individuals, not society should be responsible, you on the other hand think society is responsible and not the individual. No I say it should be a balance that recognizes the limitation sof personal responsiblity as well as ackowledging its importance. No, you haven't. According to you, it's a woman's choice, which means you didn't make any decision. Advised, possibly, decided, no. You just can't stop trying totwist my words, can you. What I said was: "how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion". So yeah, I was involved, but ultimately the chhoice wan't mine. Which, really, was my point all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 So yeah, I was involved, but ultimately the chhoice wan't mine. Oh, yeah, right. Well, then, myself and the 18m or so other Canadian taxpayers are also "involved" in every abortion that takes place in Canada, because we're paying for them. Why are we not allowed a voice in the decision? I bet you had a voice in your partner's decision, Blackdog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Statistsics show that low-income people are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies and less likey to use contraceptives. So wouldn't you think that after they had to pay 200 dollars for an abortion, or new somebody who did, you go by a 10 dollar box of rubbers? Wouldn't have anything to do with, oh, not becoming or getting someone else pregnant, would it? I understood the question to be relating to abortions..... You just can't stop trying totwist my words, can you.What I said was: "how many of you have personally had to deal with making the choice of having an abortion". So yeah, I was involved, but ultimately the chhoice wan't mine. Which, really, was my point all along. BD, I don't believe in abortions, but with that said, I can understand that we will always have them, so as a moral issue, yes I can understand people being "pro choice" even though I don't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact, that other then in a case of a rape or health, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for somebody elses "opps"....... WRT smokers or junk food, thats hard to prove, people can still get lung cancer without smoking and people can be fat without eating juck food........but people are not born pregnant........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sully Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Statistsics show that low-income people are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies and less likey to use contraceptives. Could you please then provide them then, thanks!!!! Funnier still how asking people for understanding and compassion for the fellow man is greeted with such scorn. Understanding and compassion, very much include making people responsibilty for their own actions didn't you know. No where does that make people monsters, other than in your eyes. We are only proclaiming the golden rule, "treat others as you wish to be treated", we are not asking to be excused for our screw ups either, remember that would ya!!!! No I say it should be a balance that recognizes the limitation sof personal responsiblity as well as ackowledging its importance. Do you really tho, so far I have really yet to see that in most of your posts!!!!! So then you would agree that a second abortion would be totally the individuals responsiblity I am too assume? or would there be mitigating circumstances such as: 1.) they do not make enough money to afford birth control 2.) they are not educated enough to know how to use it 3.) its their preference and rights to do as they please 4.) etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianPatriot Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Because we have a duty to help our fellow citizens as best we can and not punish people for mistakes. As one prominent philosopher put it "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Black Dog.... by your posts I didn´t think you believed in the bible... you do know that ´´prominent philosopher´´ you quote is none other than Jesus Christ... the bible also has teachings AGAINST abortion and homosexuality. I can give you verses if you wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianPatriot Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Abortions are most common among low income women, who also have the least access to birth control and sex education. And self-righteous people like you are happy kicking them when they're down. Why don´t these women just give birth and give the child up for adoption to one of the hundreds of couples who are infertile????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noelandmero Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 So then you would agree that a second abortion would be totally the individuals responsiblity I am too assume?or would there be mitigating circumstances such as: 1.) they do not make enough money to afford birth control 2.) they are not educated enough to know how to use it 3.) its their preference and rights to do as they please 4.) etc. An idea that is logical, fair and brilliant probably why we will never see it adopted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noelandmero Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Why don´t these women just give birth and give the child up for adoption to one of the hundreds of couples who are infertile????? Because it is a free country and all though you certainly have a right to any opinion you want a woman absolutly has the right to chose what to do with her body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianPatriot Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 Why don´t these women just give birth and give the child up for adoption to one of the hundreds of couples who are infertile????? Because it is a free country and all though you certainly have a right to any opinion you want a woman absolutly has the right to chose what to do with her body. What about the child within her? Its not just her body she´s dealing with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 BD, I don't believe in abortions, but with that said, I can understand that we will always have them, so as a moral issue, yes I can understand people being "pro choice" even though I don't agree with them, but that doesn't change the fact, that other then in a case of a rape or health, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for somebody elses "opps"....... The fact is, we pay for people's "oopses" all the time. But deciding who "deserves" publicly-funded health services such as abortion is dangerous in that , as I said, just about anyone can be found to bear some measure of responsibility for their misfortune. For instance, my tax dollars pay for medical treatment of SUV drivers who are injured when their vehicles roll over: why should I pay because they choose to drive dangerous vehicles? You see what I'm getting at? Once you start splitting hairs, where do you stop? And I wanna see a cite on that repeat abortion figure. Black Dog.... by your posts I didn´t think you believed in the bible... you do know that ´´prominent philosopher´´ you quote is none other than Jesus Christ... the bible also has teachings AGAINST abortion and homosexuality. I can give you verses if you wish. The Bible also has teachings against eating shellfish and wearing blended fabric clothing. What's your point? Gotta run..see y'all next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 18, 2004 Report Share Posted June 18, 2004 The fact is, we pay for people's "oopses" all the time. But deciding who "deserves" publicly-funded health services such as abortion is dangerous in that , as I said, just about anyone can be found to bear some measure of responsibility for their misfortune. For instance, my tax dollars pay for medical treatment of SUV drivers who are injured when their vehicles roll over: why should I pay because they choose to drive dangerous vehicles? You see what I'm getting at? Once you start splitting hairs, where do you stop?And I wanna see a cite on that repeat abortion figure Ahh but you want to "split hairs" to a "finite difference", I on the other hand see it as black and white.......are you going to die from this pregency? Where you raped? Did you have a little too much to drink? Did you have to just get your freak on, but couldn't be bothered to use a rubber? Yes or No answer would do....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 I guess that there is a lot of choices that people make; perhaps we should not fund health care required for those choices; HIV; unsafe sex Lung disease , etc ; any smoker. Broken limbs etc; athletes, skiers; tennis injury;the list goes on. any parent that chooses to get pregnant knowing that they would pass on expensive genetic diseases; make them pay for the child's care. Where do we draw the lline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 I guess that there is a lot of choices that people make; perhaps we should not fund health care required for those choices; HIV; unsafe sex Lung disease , etc ; any smoker. Broken limbs etc; athletes, skiers; tennis injury;the list goes on. any parent that chooses to get pregnant knowing that they would pass on expensive genetic diseases; make them pay for the child's care. Where do we draw the lline. Any of the those "examples" you used can't be proven 100% to be the cause of any of your "victims" ailment and because of that, iut's quite clear your comparing apples to oranges...... Thats not the case when it comes to pregnancy.......as I'm sure you know how that works.......takes no guess work at all....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Oh yes they can and are all the time. Spoken like a self righteous man that if he got a girl pregnant would go on with his life with no inconveniences while only the female must disrupt her life and plans. Many of these girls are very young and not ready for motherhood nor to deal with having a child that she will always wonder about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoker Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Spoken like a self righteous man that if he got a girl pregnant would go on with his life with no inconveniences while only the female must disrupt her life and plans. Many of these girls are very young and not ready for motherhood nor to deal with having a child that she will always wonder about. I see the point went over your head......I'm against abortion, and because of that, I take precautions so I would never have to deal with an abortion.......and if I had an "oops", I'd bloody well have to pay for it. Savvy? And if these mothers and fathers have an "oops", they to should bloody well pay for it, whether it be paying the costs of having a child, going through the discomfort of child birth or paying to have a abortion..........you get it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 Anyhow, It is time to get back to the big issues. Harper's plans with our health care; he will be allowing privatization; a two tiered health system We are already facing that beginning in BC. That will mean even longer waits for the patients in the regular system. We still face the same shortage of doctors Gordon Campbell in BC has the same extreme right wing ideas. Unions have been decimated; contracts broken; resouces and jobs sold off to foreign interests. Other than health care is our freedom to make our own decisions in world affairs. Harper would have us blindly following Bush and the USA wherever they lead even when Canadians disagree. Democracy should be a continuous situation not once every four years or so on election day. When Harper went to the USA and apologized for Canada not agreeing to support the USA in the very unwise decision to invade Iraq; I was disgusted with him. I would never trust him to make the correct decision in a similar situation. Democratic leader should listen to the wishes of the people year round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 And I wanna see a cite on that repeat abortion figure. Facts in Brief, Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 September 1995; that is now ancient history 9 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugo Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 September 1995; that is now ancient history 9 years ago. The latest data was collected in 2000 by Stats Canada and it shows exactly the same trend. If you have some conflicting information, share it. But I don't have much time for people who rubbish my research while remaining too lazy or ignorant to perform any of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted June 19, 2004 Report Share Posted June 19, 2004 That $50billion sounds familiar. Oh yes, that's almost $1billion a week just like what George Bush is doing. Tuning Bill Clinton's surpluses into a big massive deficit.So anything George does, Harper wants to copy cat. No Harper doesn't want to copy cat Bush, that more liberal lies and malicious slander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.