 | | Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal
|
| | | Maggie Cambron wrote: I hope it's okay to butt in, but I have a question for you, Maggie (or anyone, really; I guess that I just find women's perspectives more vested on this topic). Should a woman who engages in sexual activity as a willing (...) (24 years ago, 15-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | (...) topic). (...) all (...) I think the problem is that pro-choice people would say that of course she's responsible. Not because of any law or ethic, but because she ends up with the loaf in the oven. And it is her responsibility to have it (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, I agree she should be responsible for becoming pregnant or not becoming pregnant if that's her preference. In an ideal world I would say it should jointly be agreed upon with her partner and they should both take responsibility, however (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Previously, you wrote: (...) I took that to mean that you thought that laissez-faire stance was to allow murder. And that you hoped that while murder might make you uncomfortable, you would allow it to remain a personal decision for everyone. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | (...) The statement you quoted from before had to do with IF I were pro-life and thought that any abortion was murder. In that case, I might vote for people who would put the likes of Thomas and Scalia (sp?) on the Supreme Court in the hope that (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Yes, exactly. And your response was that you'd try to keep it a personal decision. Now obviously, that's not what you meant, or how you meant it. Fine. For the sake of the next two points below, I'm assuming that we're defining murder as a (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Maggie Cambron
|
| | | | | | | (...) We both agree that is murder. (...) I would convict him as long as I could be sure the sentence he is given is no more than about 2 weeks. (...) Ironically, I think in actual fact I would find it much more than mildly distasteful. (...) That's (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) This stance kind of troubles me. It suggests that not only do you view the death penalty as an appropriate penalty for rape, but you don't even expect that the alleged perpetrator should get a trial. (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) Hi Frank, When you say that I approve of "the death pnealty" it sounds like you're talking about a court-ordered penalty. I don't believe that courts should pass out death. Ever. Really! One of my stances is this: Government (at all, I mean as (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) I think there's a big difference between an act of self defense, and chasing someone down after the fact. Vigilante justice should not be tolerated. I know that it is a very fine line, but my feeling is that once a perpetrator is leaving the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I too think that. Self defense doesn't even need to go to court. (...) Your opinion is noted and disagreed with. For two reasons: First, I think there is nothing inherently wrong with vigilante justice, if it is rightly applied. And I'll be (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) IMO, yes. (...) Yes. (...) Well. Now that's a tougher one. My opinion on this is that the number of abortions should be decreased through means of *education* about contraceptives, about sex abstinance, and yes, values. I've been distilled (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) Why should abortions be reduced? (...) Unwanted how? Rape? Carelessness? Would it matter? What would the options be? (...) For what reasons exactly would it be a hard decision? Do they revolve around you or the fetus? (...) *good* values:-) (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) Because at a certain point, abortion IS murder. By the end of the pregnancy the fetus is all but a baby, and deflating its/his/her skull is not letting it live. The rpoblem is, when exactly is that point; no one can say. The best solution is (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | Note below that in my questions, I'm not arguing, I'm asking for clarification. (...) So what? Do you think that pre-murder abortions should be reduced too? Why? (...) Why can no one say? That point must be based on something. If it's based on (...) (24 years ago, 16-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: From Harry Browne —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | (...) No prob. Thanks for making that clear! (...) See below... (...) Not really. Whatever you decide that point might be (sentential tissue issues were brought up here IIRC?, and the fetus being viable (i.e. can survive outside the womb), etc) it (...) (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
