Support for Things That Harm Others

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Abortion kills the innocent.

It is part of the culture of death pushed on us by the left.

It treats human beings as tools to be used.

Just a quick question for you -- since you suppose the left is "the culture of death," is it your understanding that Democrats and Liberals all kill their babies, and can you say why they haven't died out yet?

 

[Sand Dancer]

It's not going to change my underlying belief that abortion takes a human life. So to me, it is the pro-abortion people who are harming others (killing them). At conception, a new person is created. Sure, things can go wrong naturally, as we see with miscarriages, which are very tragic events. I personally think exceptions should be made for true medical emergencies. Usually, you can't save the baby in those cases, anyway. It's still a loss but at least you can save the mother.

How about promoting a way for an embryo/fetus to be removed and implanted into a woman who wants it? The latter will pay for it, of course.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The use of the word 'host' is abhorrent.

It might be abhorrent, but it is what it is. It is a fact, and long something of a mystery, that if permitted, a mother's T-cells would attack fetal cells and kill it. The placenta actually sets up a protective barrier that disables T-cells, in exactly the same way that many parasites do inside their hosts.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually a gun was designed to accurately hit a target with a small projectile as efficiently as possible.

That's how most guns I've owned & used were designed.
This points out the problem of anti-gunners making
their argument based upon that factoid.

 

[ChristineM]

Funny... mine has never killed anyone. It just sits there.

And? Does that mean it is not capable of killing something?

 

[Revoltingest]

How about promoting a way for an embryo/fetus to be removed and implanted into a woman who wants it?

Oh, that's something I'd never
want imposed upon anyone.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

This question is not just about abortion but also any other freedom that considerably affects specific groups' well-being, health, or safety.

If you are a conservative, liberal, or otherwise and you oppose, say, the legalization of elective abortion, right to proselytize or openly practice one's religion (which is banned in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, for all but the majority religion), or same-sex marriage, how do you square that with having friends who may be negatively affected by such legislation?

For example, I have conservative friends who have told me that knowing me has changed their views on apostasy: whereas they previously believed that apostates should face capital punishment, knowing one on a personal level has added a layer to their views on the issue that they didn't consider before. They changed their mind when the issue no longer became a mere distant abstraction to them.

So, if you support or oppose certain things such as the above and know someone who falls into a category of people who will be affected by them, do you take into consideration the effects of said views or a vote based on them on your friend, acquaintance, etc.? How do you address the knowledge that they may be harmed by something you endorse?

You know, by including only two options in your OP -- support or oppose -- you leave out the possibility that there are things we might not like, or would not do ourselves, but are prepared to let others make their own free choices.

I don't like abortion, and I've said so many times. But what I like isn't the rule for all the world. I'm only me. I can't get pregnant, being both male and old ), so I can't say what it must be like for another person to be facing that awesome, totally life-changing situation. Especially if caused by evils such as rape or incest. And therefore, I neither support nor oppose abortion -- but I do support a woman's right to choose how to move forward in the eventuality for herself.

I used to be a smoker (stupid, stupid, stupid) but quit 20 years ago or so. Now, I wish other people, especially people I like, would also quit -- but that is not my choice. I do not, however, permit them to smoke in my house, and nowhere in Canada is it now permitted to smoke indoors (other than the privacy of your own home, which generally does NOT include apartments) because doing so can be harmful to others. And that's the criteria -- you are free to harm yourself, but you are not free to harm others.

As to the question of "is a fetus an other" I'm afraid people have already made up their minds, and that is the reason this debate goes on forever and forever. I look back at my own life, and I certainly know absolutely nothing before I was 3 years old, let alone just 12 or 18 weeks in the womb. This thing call "I" was not there, did not exist. And for me, that's key.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Abortion is murder, killing inconvenient human beings.

Guns are most often bought for self defense.

Guns are a tool. Abortion is killing by intent.

My best friend would have died many years ago if she wouldn't have been able to get an abortion, years before she would successfully give birth to her first child. And it would have been stupid and pointless to not do it because neither would likely had survived if the abortion wasn't performed.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And? Does that mean it is not capable of killing something?

By itself? I don't think it would. I mean, it's always been quite obedient. Maybe I got an unusually non aggressive one?

 

[ChristineM]

By itself? I don't think it would. I mean, it's always been quite obedient. Maybe I got an unusually non aggressive one?

Doubtful, more likely it has an owner who is responsible. Not everyone is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Denying abortion kills the innocent too
Death of Savita Halappanavar - Wikipedia

I'd have known more of the Troubles, but stuff like that makes me wish my great grandparents would have stayed put.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What was effective in changing their minds,
ie, what about your demeanor & conduct
with them effected the change?

It's often times just knowing someone who is. Such as, it's fairly commonly reported by trans people that they had a family member who was anti trans until it became more personal and got a face attached to it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Doubtful, more likely it has an owner who is responsible. Not everyone is.

So I guess no one should be allowed to own a chainsaw either, because some people will use it irresponsibly?

 

[ChristineM]

So I guess no one should be allowed to own a chainsaw either, because some people will use it irresponsibly?

Don't be pathetic

 

[Revoltingest]

It's often times just knowing someone who is. Such as, it's fairly commonly reported by trans people that they had a family member who was anti trans until it became more personal and got a face attached to it.

The old Daryl Davis technique, eh.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The old Daryl Davis technique, eh.

Basically, just less active about it.

 

[idea]

This question is not just about abortion but also any other freedom that considerably affects specific groups' well-being, health, or safety.

If you are a conservative, liberal, or otherwise and you oppose, say, the legalization of elective abortion, right to proselytize or openly practice one's religion (which is banned in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, for all but the majority religion), or same-sex marriage, how do you square that with having friends who may be negatively affected by such legislation?

For example, I have conservative friends who have told me that knowing me has changed their views on apostasy: whereas they previously believed that apostates should face capital punishment, knowing one on a personal level has added a layer to their views on the issue that they didn't consider before. They changed their mind when the issue no longer became a mere distant abstraction to them.

So, if you support or oppose certain things such as the above and know someone who falls into a category of people who will be affected by them, do you take into consideration the effects of said views or a vote based on them on your friend, acquaintance, etc.? How do you address the knowledge that they may be harmed by something you endorse?

Two relatives, with opposite political views, both posted the below. I'm independent, moderate, sad, there are good well-meaning people on all sides.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Don't be pathetic

Or drink a beer, because people drinking and driving kill scads of innocent people, but we still allow alcohol.
If we eliminate everything that could hurt somebody if not used responsibly we're not going to have much left.

 

[ChristineM]

Or drink a beer, because people drinking and driving kill scads of innocent people, but we still allow alcohol.
If we eliminate everything that could hurt somebody if not used responsibly we're not going to have much left.

Lets terminate all pregnancies before birth and remove all temptation to misuse every object ever designed.

Chains saws, beer, cars etc were not designed to kill people though they can be misused,l GUNS WERE DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE. Why do you have such difficulty grasping this simple concept?

 

[Revoltingest]

Or drink a beer, because people drinking and driving kill scads of innocent people, but we still allow alcohol.
If we eliminate everything that could hurt somebody if not used responsibly we're not going to have much left.

I note that alcohol is by design a toxic substance
that reduces skill, & puts people in great danger.
Not just the imbibers, but innocents nearby.