• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

theREALkoreaboy said:
please find for me the right to abortion in the charter of the bill of rights. i'll save you some trouble- you can't.

and i havent been arguing for 'KB's moral compass' these past 10 pages. i have been arguing in favour or a dominant, critical moral compass that has been put in place over thousands of years by our civilization to protect traditional marriage and the difficult pair bond of a man and a woman to ensure the survival of our species.
Click to expand...

Signing a document at the court house does not ensure the survival of our species. Humanity survived for tens of thousands of years prior to the relatively recent introduction of formal marriages.

You don't need to be married to ejaculate semen into a vagina.
 
i could name several without much thought. eliminating the traditional moral constraints around marriage, relationships, and childbirth, for example, would be very beneficial to those (and i'm not necessarily saying this is you) who want to be highly promiscuous, get pregnant, and abort any resulting offspring so they don't get "tied down". for those in traditional marriages, breaking down those constraints would make it easy for you to get bored of your relationship, feel trapped, feel it's fine to step out of your marriage, have affairs, get divorced, and leave your children in the lurch.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
It's not listed specifically but arguments for its protection usually apply to:
Click to expand...

"security of the person" has nothing to do with "the right to abort unwanted children", unless you are a lefty activist judge, steeped in moral relativism, who wants to find even the flimsiest "justification" for allowing abortion.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
i could name several without much thought. eliminating the traditional moral constraints around marriage, relationships, and childbirth, for example, would be very beneficial to those (and i'm not necessarily saying this is you) who want to be highly promiscuous, get pregnant, and abort any resulting offspring so they don't get "tied down". for those in traditional marriages, breaking down those constraints would make it easy for you to get bored of your relationship, feel trapped, feel it's fine to step out of your marriage, have affairs, get divorced, and leave your children in the lurch.
Click to expand...

Do you ever get tired of over-dramatizing? That's quite a leap of circumstances designed to sound as horrifying as possible.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
"security of the person" has nothing to do with "the right to abort unwanted children", unless you are a lefty activist judge, steeped in moral relativism, who wants to find even the flimsiest "justification" for allowing abortion.
Click to expand...

Security of the person guarantees an individual to protect themselves and their bodies against outside threats to that decision-making. If I chose to get a vasectomy tomorrow it would be the business of no one else but myself. Similarly, the same argument applies to abortion. And given the number of orphaned children in the world, we could use more abortions.
 
leafman101 said:
heh.
Click to expand...

you think he "heh-ed" me there? do you? you DO understand that the age of enlightenment was spurred on when ancient texts and philosophies were rediscovered and reinterpreted by staunchly catholic figures like augustine and aquinas, right? you DO understand that the printing press was invented to speed up the production of bibles to spread the word of god, right?
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
you think he "heh-ed" me there? do you? you DO understand that the age of enlightenment was spurred on when ancient texts and philosophies were rediscovered and reinterpreted by staunchly catholic figures like augustine and aquinas, right?
Click to expand...

I already demonstrated with Augustine's words how your opposition to homosexual marriage is wrong according to codified Christian texts.

you DO understand that the printing press was invented to speed up the production of bibles to spread the word of god, right?
Click to expand...

Which the Roman Catholic Church was staunchly against because it would have reduced the powers of the priesthood substantially without an illiterate population coming to them in order to ask for penance or advice.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Do you ever get tired of over-dramatizing? That's quite a leap of circumstances designed to sound as horrifying as possible.
Click to expand...

yes, oh my god. was i EVER being dramatic to suggest that many people are promiscuous today, abort unwanted pregnancies, have affairs, and get divorced. what a f*cking drama queen i was being there in envisioning THOSE crazy scenarios...
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
you think he "heh-ed" me there? do you? you DO understand that the age of enlightenment was spurred on when ancient texts and philosophies were rediscovered and reinterpreted by staunchly catholic figures like augustine and aquinas, right? you DO understand that the printing press was invented to speed up the production of bibles to spread the word of god, right?
Click to expand...


Jays definitely "heh'd" you there. No question about it.

Go back to the Dark Ages. Thats where we'd be if you had your way.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
i could name several without much thought. eliminating the traditional moral constraints around marriage, relationships, and childbirth, for example, would be very beneficial to those (and i'm not necessarily saying this is you) who want to be highly promiscuous, get pregnant, and abort any resulting offspring so they don't get "tied down". for those in traditional marriages, breaking down those constraints would make it easy for you to get bored of your relationship, feel trapped, feel it's fine to step out of your marriage, have affairs, get divorced, and leave your children in the lurch.
Click to expand...

"not specifically, no. but you and many others of your generation have found it to be very, very beneficial to erode any and all moral constraints, because it allows you to more easily pursue your own needs, wants, and desires in other areas."

Get a ****ing clue. None of these things apply to me nor do they have anything to do with my belief that same-sex marriage should be allowed.
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Security of the person guarantees an individual to protect themselves and their bodies against outside threats to that decision-making. If I chose to get a vasectomy tomorrow it would be the business of no one else but myself. Similarly, the same argument applies to abortion. And given the number of orphaned children in the world, we could use more abortions.
Click to expand...

so getting pregnant is "an outside threat" now? and a "threat to decision-making"??! how about the decision the person made to have sex in the first place? the truth is that the "threat" to their decision making comes from the fact that if they are made to have that pesky unwanted kid that might result from getting pregnant, their decision to be sexually active with multiple partners in the future might be under threat- not the person themselves.

and again, i am really not going to go much further down the abortion road, but it is utterly immoral to suggest that eliminating another life is moral if it is inconvenient for you.
 
Do you think it's more important to keep marriages together or do you think its more important that each party involved has options to lead their own life?

Why do you think most marriages end? It can be in regards to cheating, you can have a controlling partner, they can be abusive, you might find out that they don't want the same thing as you.

These are ALL much more important factors then keeping people together for the sake of keeping them together.

theREALkoreaboy said:
yes, oh my god. was i EVER being dramatic to suggest that many people are promiscuous today, abort unwanted pregnancies, have affairs, and get divorced. what a f*cking drama queen i was being there in envisioning THOSE crazy scenarios...
Click to expand...
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
so getting pregnant is "an outside threat" now? and a "threat to decision-making"??! how about the decision the person made to have sex in the first place? the truth is that the "threat" to their decision making comes from the fact that if they are made to have that pesky unwanted kid that might result from getting pregnant, their decision to be sexually active with multiple partners in the future might be under threat- not the person themselves.
Click to expand...

People are going to have sex. You cannot legislate against that. The invention of the birth control pill was a crowning achievement in terms of being a scientific and a humanist breakthrough because it provided people with greater options to safeguard themselves against unwanted pregnancies. It also provided people with greater choices because it allowed them to control their bodies to a significantly greater degree and allowed them to determine if pregnancy occurred or not. This had the effect of liberating a young society.

and again, i am really not going to go much further down the abortion road, but it is utterly immoral to suggest that eliminating another life is moral if it is inconvenient for you.
Click to expand...

It's not a life until a certain period of time so it's not immoral.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
sigh. think it through, please. the church HAD ITS WAY in those 'dark ages' of christendom. and you know what? it evolved out of them.
Click to expand...

Because early Italian Renaissance intellectuals were willing to risk horrific torture and death at the hands of Roman religious authorities in order to engage in numerous scientific inquiries and experiments that the Church forbade, such as dissecting corpses and practising physiology.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
yes, we did. gradually, slowly, incrementally, and largely under the moral framework laid out by christianity.
Click to expand...

yes. for thousands of years homosexuality was looked down upon, criminalized, stigmatized -- you name it.

over the past 50 years or so it has incrementally been more accepted across society. people became allowed to be openly gay. buggery laws were abolished. the last legal impediment to full inclusion is the right to marry.

so, there you have it -- incremental change.
 
Leafovic said:
Do you think it's more important to keep marriages together or do you think its more important that each party involved has options to lead their own life?
Click to expand...

i think it is far, far more important for society, for the greater good, and for children that marriages stay together than for each party to "feel free to lead their own life" satisfying their own wants, desires, or whims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top