Same sex marriage and the slippery slope.

Post Reply New Topic

???



Why is everybody better off?



No I did not. I don't have a problem with more sex at all in fact



No it does not. Not requiring people to take responsibility for their actions does not help people live better lives imo.




28 abortions per 1000 women still seems quite high imo, although I guess it's hard to compare with rates before it became legal.

That's not a great argument, since fetuses conceived by rape make up only a very tiny proportion of abortions.

A more damning issue with pro-lifers is the common refusal to accept that exceptions would have to be made in the case of serious medical risk to the mother.

Again, rape and the likelyhood of the mother dying at childbirth are both common exceptions made with regards to opposition towards abortion. Focusing on either of these two issues seems to be not very constructive imo as the major disagreement lies with abortion being available for women who have consentual sex without contraception where there is no medical risks for the moder.

Because while having the child would have been a manageable state of affairs, it would also have been an undesirable one. Given that this is a hypothetical, I don't need too many details.


I get the feeling that you missed the point due to a phrasing issue, as your point centered around sexual activity.


You do realize that you are now just making s**t up, right? You've given no justification for thinking that getting an abortion is less responsible than not getting an abortion. Even further, if there are cases where sex is desirable, a child is possible(in that the couple is hypothetically willing to be responsible if this has to happen), but a child is undesirable, then it is still the best state of affairs that a child not be had, and abortion actualizes this state of affairs. I don't see how making things work out the best for the people involved is less responsible, nor do I see a reason why abortion is a priori irresponsible either.

This isn't about "not requiring people to take responsibility" this is entirely about what set of options are best within a given context.


Well... ok? I don't really give a s**t about your opinion. I don't even see what problem you are even getting at, as the only problem I see is uterine damage. Frankly, I get the feeling that you have some strange aversion to abortion, and you are trying to make a fake rationalization for it, but that this rationalization is really just that, and not really a matter of any intuition that can be made coherent.

My point was that teens are getting more responsible, so trying to put the entire burden on that point seems pointless.

And on this point of disagreement, I don't really see any solid arguments for the other side. Unless you have a reason to say that abortion is inherently wrong, the number of abortions is irrelevant.

And people not taking responsibility for their actions is a desirable state of affairs?



No it did not. My point centered around people having sex without taking responsibility for the consequences it may have.



Taking responsibility imo means that either you do not have sex or you have sex using contraception and accept the risk of conception in those rare cases where contraception doesn't work.



Abortion is murder. If abortion is moral, then killing babies that are just born is equally moral.




If teens are actually getting more responsible, then there's less reason to legalise abortion. Preventing conception should be the goal, not destroying life after conception.

yeah, abortion is murder!

miscarriage is manslaughter!

menstruation is negligent homicide!

If marriage has been "reduced to a meaningless ritual", why are so many gay and lesbian couples fighting so hard for their right to engage in it? And why are you and others like you fighting so hard to prevent it? Sounds like you don't think it really is all that "meaningless" - you're just making crap up in an effort to bolster an argument that even you can't find effective grounds for.

Incidentally, if life begins at conception, then God (or Nature, if you prefer) is a horrible mass murderer, as up to 75% of fertilized embryos miscarry during pregnancy, including about 22% which are fertilized, but fail to implant in the uterus.

Unless the miscarriage was provoked, I don't see how this can possibly apply.



How do unfertilised eggs or sperm cells compare to a fertilised egg?



Symbolism.



Because I want it to have some meaning again. For example, I'm all for changing the law so divorce is only possible only under certain conditions (eg. abuse or cheating).



This is relevant why? Animals kill each other for food all the time. The only difference is that they usually don't kill their own species and especially not their own offspring.

Wrong... the correct answer is legal benefits.

Wrong. Civil union can provide all the legal benefits needed.

Civil unions would do one of two things...

1) Create a separate but equal union. This cannot legally happen since separate but equal is illegal in the United States

2) Ensure one was superior to the other. In which case, we would have the exact same problem we do now... one group fighting for the right to the superior union.

How would you feel if you were denied the ability to be at your dying partner's bedside because you couldn't marry them? What if you two adopted a child together, but because you couldn't marry only one of you was legally the adoptive parent? What if that adoptive parent died?

Would you think it was fair that the remaining parent get their child ripped from them?

No it doesn't. Here in Belgium, civil union was legally adopted before we had gay marriage and this was applicable to both heterosexual and homosexual couples. The legal benefits are similar to that of married couples, but people in a civil union can seperate more easily than married people and don't require any ceremony.



One could argue that civil unions are superior to marriage because seperation is easier and civil union doesn't require a ceremony. It's really a matter of opinion.



I don't see why marriage should be a criterium for being able to be at your dying partner's bedside. Living together as a couple should be more than sufficient as a criterium.



I personally don't support homosexuals adopting children because I support the idea that it's better for a child to grow up with both a male and a female parent. For the same reason, I object to single men or women adopting children. For that reason, I don't see why this is relevant to the discussion.

Belgium isn't America. In America, separate but equal is illegal. Creating civil unions for same sex couples and leaving marriage for everyone else is no different than the 'black drinking fountain' and 'white drinking fountain'.

You shouldn't compare our legal system to yours, because they are not the same.

I agree, but our legal system does not.

It's relevant because the ideal shouldn't dictate whether a child gets a loving home or not. We have an over-abundance of children floating around in foster care just waiting for *someone* to love them... be it a single parent, a same sex couple, or a male/female couple.

And I speak from experience, here. I would have given anything to have a stable home where I was loved. One such home was denied to me because it happened to be a same sex home.