Abortion Ban In South Dakota!

[RandFan]

You seem to have a problem of conflating completely different positions.

What I questioned was "If a person believes that a murder is being committed then it would be quite appropriate to try and stop that murder."

Now you're saying that what I'm questioning is "preventing the killing of an innocent person is a moral imperative".

Those are completely different propositions, and we will make little progress if you keep switching between different statements.

No. No. No. Those who are trying to stop abortions are trying to prevent the killing of an innocent person. That is their moral imperative.

What I meant was "can you think of a case in which someone has discussed choice with respect to abortion, and there was no reason for it?" A "case" as in "a specific example".

Please clarify?

You don't understand why a moral system which consists of nothing but "don't commit murder" is incomplete?

?

Straw man.

Then, perhaps you should post it, rather than asking a bunch of rhetorical questions.

The questions were not rhetorical. Poor form and bad dodge not to answer them.

Allowing someone to enslave someone else means giving them a choice at the cost of someone else's freedom. Allowing someone to abort gives them a choice without costing anyone else's freedom.

To those who think abortion is murder, choice gives a woman the ability to take away the freedom of the unborn child. It costs the unborn child his or her freedom. That is what you are not getting. You believe that abortion is not murder so you don't incorporate the fact that others do in your calculations.

And I think I know where you're going with this. Yes, this argument requires that abortion not be considered to not be murder. But while that is necessary, it is not sufficient.

It is the only thing that matters.

I think you mean "neutral", not ambiguous.

No. I mean ambiguous because it is. Morals don't work by being inconsistent. "Choice" is inconsistent because it simply says everyone should be able to choose whether or not to murder or not murder depending on their point of view. This is ambiguous.

But that is irrelevant. Just because there are cases where there are things more important than choice doesn't mean that choice isn't important.

When is "choice" more important than murder? (not a rhetorical question)

Exactly. You keep linking the issue of whether abortion is permissable to whether people think the fetus is a human being. But that's irrelevant. What matters is whether it is, not whether people believe it is.

DUH! That is my point. A fetus isn't a human just because someone thinks that it is. Thank you. That is all that is important. Saying you have a right to choose whether or not to murder is dumb and morally ambiguous.

You were.

Saying I was won't make it so.

Yes, you did. Forcing people not to have abortions is an extra right.

Huh? Forcing people not to murder is an extra right?

Anti-abortion-rights groups believe that abortion is murder. Right? (not a rhetorical question. This question is paramount. Please answer it?)

So, choice says that murder is ok for some and not to others. That is morally ambiguous.

No, the right to force people not to abort, or not kill cows, etc.

But if abortion is murder as anti-abortion-rights groups say it is then forcing people not to murder is an extra right? You can't believe that.

I don't see how that is a response to my point.

If abortion is murder then it is wrong. Period. Full stop. Nothing else matters.

How is it a morally ambiguous position?

Because murder is not simply wrong for some people. Murder is wrong for everyone. Saying that murder is ok for some but not others is morally ambiguous.

That's simply idiotic. There are plenty of things other than murder that are illegal. Moreover, that does not address my statement at all.

If it is not murder (the position of those who are anti-abortion-rights) then why should it be illegal? You don't want to face the facts that the opposition believes that abortion is murder. The fact that "plenty of things other than murder that are illegal" is entirely irrelevant to the point of this discussion.

Is Abortion Murder?

The personhood of the fetus is clearly the crucial issue for abortion, for if the fetus is not a person, abortion is not the deliberate killing of an innocent person: if it is, it is. All other aspects of the abortion controversy are relative to this one; e.g., women have rights - over their own bodies but not over other persons' bodies. The law must respect a "right to privacy" but killing other persons is not a private but a public deed. Persons have a "right to life" but non-persons (e.g., cells, tissues, organs, and animals) do not.

You are creating a straw man in order to avoid the important point of the discussion. Anti-abortion rights groups believe abortion is murder.

You are completely ignoring what I'm saying. I'm getting rather frsutrated how you keep finding ways to avoid addressing my questions.

This from the guy who refuses to answer my questions.

Is "Other people have the right to the opinion that criticizing the government is wrong, but they don't have the right to make it illegal" "morally ambiguous"? Yes, or, no? I'm not asking about the constitutionality or anything else. Is it "morally ambiguous" or not?

No, but that is NOT a good analogy. It is a bad analogy. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Those who seek to end the right to abortion seek to stop the killing of innocent people. They believe that abortion is murder. So, your analogy sucks. It is not analogous to the issue. It is not because those who seek to stop abortion believe that abortion is murder.

Really? Can you tell me which dictionary has this listed under "irrational"?

It is morally inconsistent. THAT is by definition "irrational". Saying that anyone who wants to murder can so long as they choose to believe that it is not murder. That is dumb. It is morally ambiguous. It is logically inconsistent.

You have failed to show how it is inconsistent, and furthermore being inconsistent is not the same as being irrational.

Saying that it is ok for some people to murder so long as they believe that it is not murder is inconsistent. Being inconsistent with reason or logic IS irrational.

Perhaps you should, then explain how it fits.

(P1) People who seek to end a woman's right to abortion believe that abortion is murder. Yes or no? (not a rhetorical question) I answered yours will you have the courtesy to answer mine?

(P2) Choice says that those who think abortion is murder should be free to choose to believe that.

(C) For those who believe abortion is murder it would be morally ambiguous to say that it is ok for those who don't believe that abortion is murder to murder.

Maybe you should also look up "ambiguous". I really don't think it means what you think it means.

It means exactly what I think it means. When you tell people who believe that Abortion is murder that it is all well and good for them to believe that abortion is murder so long as those who disagree can murder which you demonstrate by taking a "pro-choice to murder" stance then you are saying that there are different moral standards based solely on beliefs.

Non-rhetorical question: Should there be different moral standards for murder? (please answer the question. I answered yours.)

They are. You are simply engaging in semantic quibbling. "...the right to have an abortion" and "...the choice to have an abortion" mean the same thing.

No. One is ambiguous. One says that the right to abortion is more important than the concerns of those who wish to end the rights of women to have an abortion. The other says that murder is in the eye of the beholder. That is morally ambiguous. There is no way to get around that fact. If abortion is murder then it is wrong for everyone. Any other position is irrational, inconsistent with reason and logic.

Are you even reading what I'm posting? How can you possibly claim that everyone in favor of abortion rights is also in favor of legalizing marijuana?

Huh?

Because "pro-abortion-rights" is a mouthful.

Pro-abortion-rights" Not bad. Honest. Precise. Not ambiguous. But politically a dead end.

What part of "this [whether it is murder] is an issue" do you not understand?

THAT is my point. That is my only point. Is abortion murder? Those who seek to end women's right to abortion believe abortion is murder. You are saying that it should be a matter of choice whether or not abortion is murder. Ok, that's fine, but policy should not vary from person to person based on personal opinion. Should a socio path be allowed to murder simply because he or she doesn't think murder is wrong? (not a rhetorical question).

"Propaganda" is itself propaganda. It's simply a deragatory term people use for political positions they don't like.

I'm not using it as propaganda. I'm facing the realities. "pro-abortion-rights" is a political dead end. "Choice" is politically effective.

Yes, it does. If whether it is murder is the only issue for whether it should be legal, then all acts other than murder should be legal. That, or all acts other than murder should be illegal.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with my position.

1.) There must be a REASON for people to take the rights of women to have abortion away from them.

2.) That REASON is that anti-abortion-rights groups believe abortion is murder.

Playing games won't help you Art. Stop the straw men. Pro-Life, anti-choice, anti-abortion-rights groups simply believe that abortion is murder. That is the point. Is abortion murder?

If it is then stop it. Stop it now.

In other words, they ought to be able to choose what to do.

So long as they DON'T choose to murder. So long as they don't choose to physically harm another person. Choice is irrelevant in the case of murder.

So whether it is murder is not the only issue. The "obvious reasons" are also issues.

"Obvious reasons" ARE an issue so long as murder is not the result.

Note, all links above to beliefs that abortion is murder including this one are different. You can't get around the fact that the issue for anti-abortion-rights folks is that abortion is murder.

So, is abortion murder or not? If it is then choice should not enter into the equation. One should not be able to choose whether or not one murders. If it is not then "choice" is moot.

BTW, great example from skeptics dictionary.

The following argument also begs the question.

Abortion is the unjustified killing of a human being and as such is murder. Murder is illegal. So abortion should be illegal.
​

The conclusion of the argument is entailed in its premises. If one assumes that abortion is murder then it follows that abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. Thus, the arguer is assuming abortion should be illegal (the conclusion) by assuming that it is murder. In this argument, the arguer should not be granted the assumption that abortion is murder, but should be made to provide support for this claim

This is the point that I have been making all along. Those who are anti-abortion-rights should justify their position that abortion is murder.

 

[Luke T.]

Ex-Cop Found Not Guilty Of Sodomy Charges (2006)

Now, can you - anyone - explain how someone can be charged with sodomy, if such laws are unconstitutional?

Is the United States of America a banana republic?

This topic is getting really ugly. Which is to be expected in an abortion topic I guess.

The "sodomy laws" that were declared unconstitutional were those laws which tried to place sex acts between consenting adults in the "sodomy" category.

So it isn't that sodomy laws are unconstitutional, it is that some sex acts being defined as sodomy is unconstitutional.

It's sorta like T'ai Chi claiming to be a "skeptic".

 

[ceo_esq]

Sodomy laws exist and are used - despite what SCOTUS says. Correct?

Since the Supreme Court addressed only laws regarding consensual sodomy, I don't see what you're getting at, particularly by your use of the term "despite" (which would usually mean "in defiance or disregard of" in this context, but which makes no sense here unless you're talking about consensual sodomy laws).

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I'm not arguing that you are a backward country because someone was sent to jail for raping a little girl. I am pointing out that sodomy laws exist - despite what SCOTUS says.

yeah laws against NON-CONSENSUAL sodomy. This is a very different thing than your blanket statement that sodomy is illegal int he US despite the SCOTUS ruling. To fail to make that distinction is dishonest int he extreme. Are you saying it should it be legal?

 

[HarryKeogh]

All this because Claus doesn't want to admit he thought it was still illegal for a guy to get oral in certain parts of the United States. Now he plays his incessant word games.

 

[Thanz]

Was he charged with breaking a sodomy law? Yes or no?

Sodomy laws exist and are used - despite what SCOTUS says. Correct?

I'm not arguing that you are a backward country because someone was sent to jail for raping a little girl. I am pointing out that sodomy laws exist - despite what SCOTUS says.

Just when I think that you cannot possibly top your previous idiocies in the Politics forum, here you go again. You seem overly concerned with the use of the word "sodomy", and seem convinced that it must mean the same thing in all contexts. The particular offence under which this person was charged has a particular meaning in the legislation - a meaning which has been quoted to you verbatim. They could just as easily replaced the word "sodomy" with "aggravated sexual assault" and the law would have exactly the same effect. Neither would have any effect on what consensual adults would do. Nothing the SCOTUS has ever said would make the law in question unconstitutional.

I cannot understand why you cling to arguments like this, unless you get your ya-yas from watching everyone stomp on these stupid assertions.

And you still haven't told us what your first post was referring to.

 

[Jas]

Ex-Cop Found Not Guilty Of Sodomy Charges (2006)

Now, can you - anyone - explain how someone can be charged with sodomy, if such laws are unconstitutional?

Are you

A. Unsure of the definition of sodomy (which I provided here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473693#post1473693)?

B. Unable to comprehend the difference between consensual and forced (for the definition of ‘forced’ see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forced. Note that the definition also includes ‘To rape.’ For the definition of consensual, see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consensual )?

C. Or, are you arguing that it’s a moot (for definition of moot, see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot) point?

No. Asking for clarification does not mean that I have difficulties reading. It could also be because the poster wasn't clear enough.

You do acknowledge that this is a possibility?

Because if you don't, then I think you will find that most people here have difficulties reading.

Have you ever asked for clarification of something? Or do you simply understand everything?

Well, being as the statement in question was not phrased in an ambiguous manner, one can only assume that you either did not comprehend the words used ( the definitions I provided here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473949#post1473949), or you are deliberately being obtuse, and phrasing your questions in a deliberately provocative manner. This was explained rather nicely here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1474935#post1474935

I asked you a question: How can people even argue that oral sex is sodomy?

Which I answered here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473693#post1473693

Are you arguing the definition of sodomy?

Come on: Oral sex is an offense? How can people possibly argue that (unless they are sexual prudes and bigots)?

Does that spell "enlightened" to you?

Like I asked here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473642#post1473642, and here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1474064#post1474064, where was it claimed that the US was a hotbed of enlightenment?

Aside from which, as someone posted, the laws regarding that were declared unconstitutional.

"And..." what? Are you somehow claiming that nutty laws in the US somehow manage to nullify nutty laws in Denmark? So does the blasphemy law no longer exist in Denmark, or are blasphemy laws a hallmark of 'Hotbeds of Enlightenment'?

If you could clarify, that would be appreciated.

Could you please answer the above questions?

And the roaches creep out from the woodwork....

No argument, just name-calling. I never expected anything else from you.

So, Claus, were you name calling, or commenting on the cleanliness of your residence?


Aside from which, you have yet to back up your assertion here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1469274#post1469274, that Denmark is a ‘Hotbed of Enlightenment’

 

[CFLarsen]

People? Perhaps we could focus a bit here?

Harry Keogh claimed that SCOTUS had declared sodomy laws unconstitutional:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that sodomy laws are unconstitutional on June 26, 2003.

I showed that sodomy laws are still being used.

That's all there is to it. There's no need to attribute opinions to me that I don't have, like consensual homosex with child rape.

That is simply too low.

 

[Cleon]

Claus...You're off on this one. Really. Please, just give it up.

This thread is falling into AAH-level hell.

 

[Jas]

People? Perhaps we could focus a bit here?

Harry Keogh claimed that SCOTUS had declared sodomy laws unconstitutional:

I showed that sodomy laws are still being used.

That's all there is to it. There's no need to attribute opinions to me that I don't have, like consensual homosex with child rape.

That is simply too low.

Yeah, people! Fer chrissakes, get with program. Clearly, The US is a backwards country for charging people with child rape.

 

[Manny]

There's no need to attribute opinions to me that I don't have, like consensual homosex with child rape.

That's exactly what you're doing. You started out with sodomy meaning "oral sex" -- there can be no dispute about that; you popped off with phrases like 'get a blowjob in Arkansas and get back to me' or similar. When shown that you are wrong about the legality of that in the United States you come out with 'sodomy' meaning an entirely different thing and, and here's the conflating part, claiming that that means you were right all along.

You are absolutely equating homosexual activity, which is legal in the United States, with child rape, which is not. It's disgusting. I call upon you one more time to admit that your original contention was factually incorrect.

 

[RandFan]

Are you

A. Unsure of the definition of sodomy (which I provided here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473693#post1473693)?

B. Unable to comprehend the difference between consensual and forced (for the definition of ‘forced’ see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=forced. Note that the definition also includes ‘To rape.’ For the definition of consensual, see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consensual )?

C. Or, are you arguing that it’s a moot (for definition of moot, see here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=moot) point?




Well, being as the statement in question was not phrased in an ambiguous manner, one can only assume that you either did not comprehend the words used ( the definitions I provided here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473949#post1473949), or you are deliberately being obtuse, and phrasing your questions in a deliberately provocative manner. This was explained rather nicely here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1474935#post1474935



Which I answered here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473693#post1473693

Are you arguing the definition of sodomy?



Like I asked here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1473642#post1473642, and here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1474064#post1474064, where was it claimed that the US was a hotbed of enlightenment?

Aside from which, as someone posted, the laws regarding that were declared unconstitutional.



Could you please answer the above questions?





So, Claus, were you name calling, or commenting on the cleanliness of your residence?


Aside from which, you have yet to back up your assertion here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1469274#post1469274, that Denmark is a ‘Hotbed of Enlightenment’

Damn, get a life will ya?

My hats off to you. Good job.

ETA: Yeah, I know, I suffer the same.

 

[Thanz]

People? Perhaps we could focus a bit here?

Harry Keogh claimed that SCOTUS had declared sodomy laws unconstitutional:




I showed that sodomy laws are still being used.

That's all there is to it. There's no need to attribute opinions to me that I don't have, like consensual homosex with child rape.

That is simply too low.

Some focus would be good, istead of the word game you are playing here.

Do you understand that "sodomy" in the context of Harry Keogh's message is different than the "sodomy" in your quoted news story?

Do you understand that the SCOTUS ruled that it is unconstitutional to criminalize consensual sex acts between adults?

And finally, do you understand that the law you quoted defined "sodomy" to be non-consensual sex acts, including sex with someone under 12, and that the SCOTUS precedent therefore doesn't apply?

Why do you insist on just pointing at a word, without any context or understanding?

Finally, again, what were you referring to in your first post in this thread?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

People? Perhaps we could focus a bit here?

Harry Keogh claimed that SCOTUS had declared sodomy laws unconstitutional:




I showed that sodomy laws are still being used.

That's all there is to it. There's no need to attribute opinions to me that I don't have, like consensual homosex with child rape.

That is simply too low.

THe part your not getting is that it has been ruled unconstitutional when it is consensual, i.e. between consenting adults. Yes, you can get thrown in prison for having anal/oral sex with a six year old, but it is the "with a six year old" part that makes it illegal, not the "anal/oral sex" part. I suspect that having anal/oral sex with a six year old is illegal in "The hotbed of enlightenment" for exactly the same reasons, even if they call the charge something else.

 

[Furious]

Try Denmark.

Are you going to back up this assertion? You have provided no evidence for this.

 

[Luke T.]

Having misapprehended the liberty claim presented to it, the Bowers Court stated that proscriptions against sodomy have ancient roots.

<snip>

This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention. Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life.

Lawrence v. Texas

Enlightenment: A philosophical movement of the 18th century that emphasized the use of reason to scrutinize previously accepted doctrines and traditions and that brought about many humanitarian reforms.

http://www.answers.com/enlightenment&r=67

 

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, people! Fer chrissakes, get with program. Clearly, The US is a backwards country for charging people with child rape.

You are absolutely equating homosexual activity, which is legal in the United States, with child rape, which is not.

Incredible to what lengths some people will go to.

 

[Terry]

Incredible to what lengths some people will go to.

indeed.

 

[Furious]

Incredible to what lengths some people will go to.

Indeed.

Try Denmark.

Are you going to back this assertion? Yes or no.

 

[Jas]

Incredible to what lengths some people will go to.

To avoid answering questions?

In case you missed it, here they are:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1475650#post1475650