Well, of course ATS has a lot of liberal members!

a reply to: reldra

Why thank you! Aren't you on another one of my threads as well?

Sorry hazy mind right now XD

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: DanDanDat

You do know that the recent Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was based on the Virginia v. Loving ruling that overturned interracial marriage bans, right?

You do realize that interracial and gay are not the same thing, I would hope. That's like arguing for the rights of apples because of houses. Maybe if it was gay black and white couples, that would be usable.

So you are telling me that you cannot see the similarities between those two cases? Seriously? Do you even know the history of those two cases?

They are almost EXACTLY the same. A bunch of judgmental Christians made it so the government made those types of marriages illegal. In both cases, they justified their reasoning by using the bible and talking about the sanctity of marriage. HOWEVER, their scheme failed in that the above is a blatant violation of separation of church and state and as long as marriage is handled by the state, there shall be no restrictions on it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

While I certainly understand your opinion and even share it from my own personal political prospective.

You are absolutely wrong from the prospective of those who believe life begins at conception.

As far as personhood goes; if your belief is that a fetus is a person than you would be obligated to make it your business to stop other people from murdering a person; even if that person is a mother murdering her unborn child.

Your argument that “its none of my business” wouldn’t fly if someone sat watching while a person beat another person to death in an ally; and it doesn’t work here ether if you believe a fetus is a person. Those who think a fetus is a person are obligated to speak out against the murder they are witnessing.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

I happen to hold a position that's contrary.

I believe abortion is used in some cases to save the life of the mother. Sometimes both physically and psychologically.

That being said, I advocate for that.. Saving a woman's life. Rather than telling her to go through with her high risk pregnancy.

She also has the right to privacy,. I have no business knowing why she wants an abortion. Her reasons are not for me to know.. I know abortion is valid as a life saving operation, and I know people have their right to privacy. Therefore I interpret it as needing to be legal.

Third term can be debated, but that's not often what people are arguing in the first place, anyways.

Would you offer the same curtsy to the victim of domestic violence who winds up murdering their abuser?

It could be easily argued that the murder is necessary to help the abused physically and/or psychologically in their high risk situation.

Should society simply turn away when these events happen? Making it none of our business knowing WHY the victim murdered this person? Of course not; if society did that people would turn up murdered all over the place and the murder would just claim “domestic violence” and that would be it.

The same would be true for those who believe life begins at conception and abortion. Those people would be obligated to wont to know why the child needs to be aborted … where the stakes high enough? Was the mother in emanate danger? Was it self-defense?

You see you keep making your arguments predicated on “I believe” (as in “I believe abortion is”) and while that’s fine and only human; what your missing is that these other people we are talking come to their arguments with the same “I believe” which is completely different from yours. But because they are different from yours doesn’t make them wrong by default

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: yeahright

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I just can't call anyone who disagrees with me, "ignorant".

All people are ignorant about some things, some people are stupid. You can't fix stupid.

Very rare that you'll find someone online who admits to being ignorant.

The truly intelligent and knowledgeable will be quick to admit, that they are ignorant of most of the world's knowledge.

Those who throw and take the word ignorant as an insult.....typically are pretty far down the scale.

It's why you have people running around grunting "you'se ignunt !" and then shooting each other for it, lol.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

While I certainly understand your opinion and even share it from my own personal political prospective.

You are absolutely wrong from the prospective of those who believe life begins at conception.

As far as personhood goes; if your belief is that a fetus is a person than you would be obligated to make it your business to stop other people from murdering a person; even if that person is a mother murdering her unborn child.

Your argument that “its none of my business” wouldn’t fly if someone sat watching while a person beat another person to death in an ally; and it doesn’t work here ether if you believe a fetus is a person. Those who think a fetus is a person are obligated to speak out against the murder they are witnessing.

There is no "privacy" that makes it murder to kill a fetus in one scenario, but not in another.

That's just a complete disconnect with reality and honesty.

It truly is just as ridiculous as saying it's only illegal for you to beat my family outside my house....but I have privacy that makes it legal to beat my family in my house. And my right ! And good for society !

Liberal movements and memes rarely, if ever, make any sense or have any ethical value.

a reply to: DanDanDat

This would be more a debate if things looked like they were leaning in the direction you mention, but for now? Abortion is well within the law. And everyone is subject to the consequences of the law, whether they are for or against it.

Also, I don't in fact entirely respect the view point of life at conception as a law.

When you do things like that.. Wire hanger abortions happen.

More newborns in dumpsters happen.

More babies addicted to drugs with huge amounts of problems.. Etc.

It's not to say every girl who wants an abortion is prone to act in these ways, but it is to say that safe abortions are permitted for a reason.

I would call those people insanely selfish for desiring to perpetuate instances such as these.

It's been proven that access to such care is better for society as a whole. I do not respect a group that goes contrary to proven benefits of society, no matter how valid they believe their argument.

Your domestic violence problem doesn't hold ground because it has never been studied and found to benefit society when someone murders another due to these domestic problems. It hasn't been found that people are going to do it even outside of the law in a lot of cases, it hasn't been found a cause for support, a logical cause where aid is needed (to kill someone, no less)

The abortion cause has a lot more support than you're theoretical story.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

. . . if your belief . . .

Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.

a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

. . . if your belief . . .

Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.

You are conflating “Beliefs” with “Religion”; while the two are not mutually exclusive they are not the same thing. One can have beliefs devoid of Religion.

For example there is no amount of science that begins to suggest when human life begins; Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human” and you support laws and regulations that adhere to your beliefs. This is not any different than another person who “Believes” that a “fetus is a viable human” and supports laws and regulations that adhere to their beliefs.

You are not (nor are they) Ignorant because you are allowing your personal beliefs to dictate laws that you support or do not support.

originally posted by: yeahright

IMO. YMMV. And stuff.

excuse me, I am a bit ignorant on this. What is YMMV?

a reply to: DanDanDat

It's been found to be a benefit of society to allow safe abortions for many reasons.

Anything else is detrimental to society, and should not be seen as valid. No matter how much a person believes something, they should not be able to have a detrimental effect on others. That is infringing upon life, liberty, and happiness, infringing upon their rights to health, their rights to privacy . Etc. . Which are much, much greater points than any they can bring up.

For the record, I believe life starts at the heart beat. I married a woman who would never consider an abortion in normal circumstances, I am Christian, and I am against abortion on a personal level.

There's just too much proof that it's a benefit to society for me to insist my personal belief should become legislation.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

This would be more a debate if things looked like they were leaning in the direction you mention, but for now? Abortion is well within the law. And everyone is subject to the consequences of the law, whether they are for or against it.

Of course that goes without saying. But we aren’t discussing peoples adherence to the law or the consequences of not adhering to the law.

The discussion is about Support or Disbarment with the law; and taking legal actions to follow it or change it.

The fact that Abortion is legal to day does not make those who are against it ignorant by default nor does it make them ignorant by default for taking legal actions to try and change the laws. That is what they are supposed to do.

originally posted by:
Also, I don't in fact entirely respect the view point of life at conception as a law.

When you do things like that.. Wire hanger abortions happen.

More newborns in dumpsters happen.

More babies addicted to drugs with huge amounts of problems.. Etc.

It's not to say every girl who wants an abortion is prone to act in these ways, but it is to say that safe abortions are permitted for a reason.

I would call those people insanely selfish for desiring to perpetuate instances such as these.

It's been proven that access to such care is better for society as a whole. I do not respect a group that goes contrary to proven benefits of society, no matter how valid they believe their argument.

Your domestic violence problem doesn't hold ground because it has never been studied and found to benefit society when someone murders another due to these domestic problems. It hasn't been found that people are going to do it even outside of the law in a lot of cases, it hasn't been found a cause for support, a logical cause where aid is needed (to kill someone, no less)

The abortion cause has a lot more support than you're theoretical story.

You don’t need to respect other peoples beliefs; you just shouldn’t fool yourself into thinking those people are ignorant simply because you don’t agree with them.

‘Support’ for your view point is irrelevant. I certainly understand why you hold your opinions and that you came to your view points after much introspective and knowledge seeking. I just simply reject that if anyone comes to a different view point than you have that they must somehow be ignorant; that they didn’t partake in the same amount of introspective and knowledge seeking as you have. They may very well be just as knowledge as you on the subject; but come to a different conclusion.

a reply to: DanDanDat

The term ignorance has been given a very negative connotation, when it simply denotes a lack of knowledge, which we all have in multiple areas.

Someone who is against drinking alcohol? Not ignorant.

Someone who desires to make alcohol against the law? Is ignorant.

They are ignorant of the past attempts to do so, and ignorant of the fact that they would create a worse situation if their personal belief was turned into legislation.

Being against alcohol consumption is not ignorant.

Legislating said view could be determined ignorant for various reasons, though.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: Annee

A lot of people argue that ethics and laws based on religious belief is not the same as a state sponsored religion. In a way, they are correct and I personally wish they would change the language of the amendment to include that legislation cannot be based on religious belief, but must have other proof, statistics, etc to back it.

I wouldn't even be bothered if legislation began from a religious view, but then had merit on its own and was found to benefit society.

That's not typically the case, though.

I've been watching the change, religion losing its "tight fisted control" all my life (that's near 70 years). They are not giving up control quietly or easily. But, they are on the losing side most of the time.

And I do understand both sides, as I was still Christian when Madalyn Murray O'Hair took her atheism to court, and won. It's only about the last 10 years I claim atheist.

There are very good people who believe in a God or higher power. IMO the majority have become more liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

The "Christian Taliban" who want to turn this country into a theocracy through legislation --- yeah, well . . . .unprintable.

As a "woman of age" who lived prior to the Woman's Rights movement, anyone trying to legislate my body is going to bring the claws out.

------------------

In trying to stay closer to topic.

I think the majority of people in America (and on ATS) are socially liberal in accepting the rights of individuals.

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

It's been found to be a benefit of society to allow safe abortions for many reasons.

Anything else is detrimental to society, and should not be seen as valid. No matter how much a person believes something, they should not be able to have a detrimental effect on others. That is infringing upon life, liberty, and happiness, infringing upon their rights to health, their rights to privacy . Etc. . Which are much, much greater points than any they can bring up.

For the record, I believe life starts at the heart beat. I married a woman who would never consider an abortion in normal circumstances, I am Christian, and I am against abortion on a personal level.

There's just too much proof that it's a benefit to society for me to insist my personal belief should become legislation.

That argument is specious; I’m sure if we thought about it we could come up with a whole lot of things that could be “detrimental” to society but invalidating them all would be seen as an infringment upon life, liberty, and happiness.

Just an example There is much research to suggest that the Chinese Authoritarian Societal Model is superior to ours which is modeled on democracy; and that because of this advantage the Chinese will surpasses us as the dominate supper power. From that prospective one could argue that DEMOCRACY itself is “detrimental” to society.

Of course even if this where true our personal beliefs would not allow us to adopt the Chinese Model. We would argue that world dominance is not as important as the freedoms granted by the democratic system.

At the end of the day what is “detrimental to society” is in the eye of the beholder. And if you thought abortion amounted to murder – it wouldn’t matter if the abortion was carried out by a doctor or a girl with a wire hanger – murder is murder. You might even think the girl with her wire hanger is getting into exactly what she deserves because she is after all a murderer of pore defenseless child.

Prospective is a powerful thing; and if two people have two very different prospective on an issue it becomes hard for them to even understand where the other one is coming from. To each they might think the other is ignorant; when knowledge is far from the reason they cannot see eye to eye.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

. . . if your belief . . .

Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.

Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human”

That is not a belief.

That is a fact.

a reply to: DanDanDat

Prospective: of or relating to a future event/date/time

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: deadlyhope
a reply to: DanDanDat

We could go into philosophy here - depicting every kind act as selfish and the like, I mean a person feels good when they help someone else, right? We could also discuss how everything in this world is perspective, therefore every single detail of this world is only the vantage point of that one person and truth could not ultimately be known....

I don't follow that line of thinking, daily, though.

My personal beliefs concerning the life of others is that men are free agents. We have agency, we can make choices, we can choose the way we live. I suppose you could say my thoughts on this matter would influence my decision making because I believe in making as few laws as possible.

I never would have made a law supporting gay marriage because it's am obstruction of living a free life to have ever assumed that gay marriage was against the law, in my opinion. Letting freedom reign is making as few laws as possible. Laws should only be needed to ensure freedom is not obstructed.. As in, ending or harming a life for instance.

But I can’t accept that those who do think that a fetus is a person are being ignorant because they want to legislate the practices of abortion … that is EXACTLY what they should be doing.

They can make this personal decision for themeslves all day, every day, for the rest of their life.

Legislating my right to my body is none of their business.

. . . if your belief . . .

Don't need to go any further.

The majority of anti-abortionist are so because of religious BELIEF. Not science, not statistics, etc.

I am a major supporter of separation of church and state. Legislating my body because someone else BELIEVES it's morally wrong in God's eyes ---- not OK.

And don't pull the victim argument. The fetus is not a viable human, no matter how much some BELIEVE it is.

Your God does not legislate my body, nor any pregnancy I might have, nor the results of that pregnancy.

As you, I do have personal experience.

---------------------------------------------------

Back to Liberal.

Honestly, I think the majority of people are politically mixed. On ATS, there are a few stand outs that definitely lean one way or the other. But, I think most look at issues independently.

Your “Belief’ is that a “fetus is not a viable human”

That is not a belief.

That is a fact.

Let's get this straight.

Your beliefs are facts.

Others' beliefs are something less.

Got it.