summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV | I would agree with you if the focus on felons was to rehabilitate them instead of to punish them. By punishing them, we're doing nothing but hardening them against the world. People in prison very rarely come out of it in a better condition than when they went in. A very significant number of felons are repeat offenders. Maybe not the same crime, but they still go back to a life of crime. Also, it's very similar to an alcoholic. You wouldn't give them a shot of alcohol after they were clean and sober for 5 years. Why would you give a violent offender a gun after 5 years of incarciration? | cmv |
I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV | While many of the ways we treat felons are excessively harsh ( such as revocation of voting rights ), few things put as much danger in the hands of a person as handing them a firearm. It's the tradeoff between the danger of allowing this person access to firearms, versus the disruption it will inflict on their life. I don't see any way that firearms ownership is essential to participation in society. Though americans own many guns, only around 40 % of households own a gun, so most americans do fine without one. It's possible to hold a job, participate in the civic process, attend social functions, and be a well - functioning member of society without a firearm. We revoke drivers licenses for people with repeated DUIs because that person has already demonstrated that they have a propensity for being a danger to those around them. This is not preventing them from rejoining society, because there are many other jobs and activities that they can engage in. I wouldn't worry about the driving record of someone for an office job, for example. But if someone has demonstrated already that given a gun, they'll use it to menace, rob, or murder another member of society, why should we give them another? | cmv |
I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV | I think I have a bit of a biased opinion since I am Canadian and guns are nowhere near as prominent here as they are in the States ( is it even legal to have a handgun in Ontario? ) My reasoning is that a gun is not a necessity. Everyone agrees that a gun is an incredibly dangerous thing and a split - second rash decision can result in death. A felon has already proven that they can be dangerous to society. I think the risk to an innocent person's life is far higher when a felon owns a gun as opposed to another citizen and in my opinion, that's a far higher priority than the little enjoyment ( or whatever else ) gained from owning a gun. | cmv |
I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV | I agree with you that we need to do a better job of integrating ex - felons back into society. But I think that we should do so without putting public safety at risk, which would be the result of allowing people with a history of crime to purchase a gun. I just don't think that's as important as something like restoring their voting rights, which is much more important to me. | cmv |
I believe felons should be able to legally purchase firearms. CMV | You continually argue that deny felons rights causes them to drop out of society but what part of society does denying them the right to legally purchase firearms deny them access to? They are denied virtually no part of society in exchange for taking weapons designed to kill and maim other living beings out of the hands of people who have proved that at least once before that they would be willing to disregard society's restrictions on behaviour. Of course it is going to be unfair to restrict the rights of the wrongly convicted but I don't think anyone is going to argue otherwise but there's no way to tell who they or they wouldn't be wrongly convicted. | cmv |
I think that Northerners are smarter and more educated than Southerners ( in the United States ). CMV. | Hey I can help here. I've lived and worked in the South / Midwest and the Northeast, as an adult, for 3 + years each. ( Texas / Northern Florida + Maryland / DC ). I feel like this puts me in a unique position to give some insight here. There is a culture in a lot of the South and the Midwest that leads people to believe in the religious things you've mentioned, harbor sometimes extreme right political views and generally not appreciate or respect intelligence and higher education. These people tend to be less formally educated and put less stress on critical thinking, reason, etc. So in other words, a lot of what you perceive the South to be is true, but the people aren't born less intelligent or with less capability, its just a culture thing. One thing people from the South have going for them though that you don't see in the North as much is a more pragmatic worldview and a better understanding of the connection between human nature / human behavior. This is a byproduct of the conservative culture they were brought up in, and depending on the definition of intelligence, could make them more so ( at least in some ways. ) | cmv |
I think that Northerners are smarter and more educated than Southerners ( in the United States ). CMV. | Rural populations are generally less educated. Montana and north Dakota perform at the same level as Mississippi and Arkansas, but they are northern states. I'm from Dallas Texas and I'm working on a PhD in probability and event simulation. Just in Texas We have Rice, UT, SMU, Baylor. Texas is certainly south, and has just as many ivy league teir 1 schools as the north | cmv |
I think that Northerners are smarter and more educated than Southerners ( in the United States ). CMV. | I think you're already regretting that title. To compare " Northerners " to " Southerners " is taking a 700 mile - wide brushstroke and painting across 114, 555, 744 + people. What's the use in such a wide statistic? I certainly don't think it has any use in justifying stereotypes and prejudice. | cmv |
I think that Northerners are smarter and more educated than Southerners ( in the United States ). CMV. | As one of those " damn yankees, " ( an individual born above the Mason / Dixon now living in Dixie ), I will say that there are sociological differences in attitudes, rather than one group being " more intelligent " than the other. Kinda like, if'Murica was one big game of Survivor, while the'North'would vote off the weakest players, the'South'plays a decidedly strong social game. Also, I see your premise more along the lines of " street smart " vs. " book learning. " | cmv |
I think that Northerners are smarter and more educated than Southerners ( in the United States ). CMV. | I just wanna thank OP for being such a cool poster and listening to people's other views! Way to see the other side and deal with all posters effectively! I've been raised in the South and have only crossed the Mason - Dixon Line once. The way my extremely southern parents see it as, " They have book smarts but we have common sense. " Most people I see either acknowledge this stereotype and feel threatened by it or just try to prove it wrong. Or ya know.. not care. | cmv |
I believe all victimless crimes, including prostitution and drug use should be legalized. CMV | As far as drugs go... if I understand this correctly, it's already legal ( or at least not illegal ) to BE high, one simply cannot operate machinery such as vehicles while under the influence of any drugs including alcohol. If crime is committed under the influence of anything, I think the charge is the crime over the influence of drugs or alcohol. Possession of illegal drugs is illegal of course, but just BEING high, I don't think there is anything illegal about that. What activity it leads to might be though. | cmv |
I believe all victimless crimes, including prostitution and drug use should be legalized. CMV | Your argument is based on laws are made to prevent victims. Laws are made to follow moral law - - in other words, to keep society functioning. Child pornography is wrong, because it breaks their autonomy. They don't have a choice as a child, let alone hold the capability to make a choice. Victims aren't the only reason there are laws. It's to keep morale sanity and order. | cmv |
I believe all victimless crimes, including prostitution and drug use should be legalized. CMV | Addiction affects communities, as opposed to just the individual. Major addictions impair functionality, which then impairs the individual from many jobs. Drugs, legal or regulated, cost money. The idea here is that drug addiction leads to increased theft and / or violence. I don't think the current system we have is appropriate for decreasing drug abuse, but my argument is in reference to the idea that drug abuse only harms the user. Legalizing prostitution, on the other hand, has been shown to increase illegal forms, such as child prostitution and sex trafficking. It's also shown to be correlated with increased violence in areas where prostitution is legal. | cmv |
I think that pride for anything but what you yourself directly accomplished causes much more harm than good. CMV | Sometimes the statement is " I feel proud to choose to be associated with " Likewise - " I feel ashamed to continue to associate myself with X ". It's a weak form of the word, but it kind of works. It also has a few other meanings in the dictionary. | cmv |
I think that pride for anything but what you yourself directly accomplished causes much more harm than good. CMV | I would argue that pride in where you were born gives you a good reason to work to better the place where you were born, providing motivation for directly accomplishing things. The same goes for what your ancestors or family has done, it gives you something to live up to, a motivation to achieve more. For example I want to be an astronaut, and I take pride in the fact that Man has landed on the moon. I feel this is an ideal to live up to, I am proud that it was done by humans, a race of which I am a member, although I have done nothing to contribute directly to the moon landing. This pride motivates me to perform better in an effort to outdo the moon landing within my lifetime, perhaps to land on mars. | cmv |
I think that pride for anything but what you yourself directly accomplished causes much more harm than good. CMV | Pride in where you were born and what your ancestors have done should encourage one to nurture that legacy with positive actions. Pride in other things ( i. e. Gay Pride ) leads people to see you associated with something they might find unsavory. These people probably hold stereotyped views based on people they know are gay, but aren't consistent with the large amount of closeted gay people they interact with on a daily basis. By having pride in who you are or what you do, and being a decent person, it becomes harder to stereotype you and it actually forces people to see you as a person. | cmv |
I genuinely believe the Connecticut school shooting was fake / fabricated. CMV. | 911 is accepted as a terrorist attack on the United States by Muslim Extremists. it was not a hoax, or a set up. the people who believe these things are generally considered to be crazy ( see UFO enthusiasts, and Moon Landing denalists ) Generally belief in such conspiracies is a result of people refusing to believe such an event could occur because it clashes with their world view. what part of the sandy hook shooting do you have the biggest problem with? | cmv |
Same - Sex Marriage is not about Equal Rights. CMV | I feel like the conversation is getting a bit sidetracked into discussions of why marrying animals, in particular, is not comparable to SSM. I'm surprised no one so far is defending the idea there exists some kind of right to marry whoever you love, which I thought would be the most controversial thing I said. Does anything think there is a " right to marry who you love " or something similar? | cmv |
Same - Sex Marriage is not about Equal Rights. CMV | That's another case where I feel OP doesn't go far enough, but hear me out. I don't think there was a single movement in history that cared about " equal rights ". Movements are defined around some groups, and they want what's good for that particular group - if that involves getting rights other groups have, sure why not. If it involves losing special privileges in name of equality - that is never supported. Every instance of talk about " equal rights " in history has been completely disingenuous. | cmv |
Same - Sex Marriage is not about Equal Rights. CMV | / u / kongforaday nailed it on the head. The push for SSM isn't just so that you can say that you're married, it's so that you can receive the spousal benefits that come with the state recognizing your marriage. Marriage is a religious construct that the state recognizes and gives you benefits for. That is why the push for SSM is there, it is so that all people are able to receive the benefits that only some people ( heterosexual couples ) can receive at the moment. The slippery slope argument that is often thrown out is : if we let homosexuals get married, how long before people start marrying animals? This is kind of similar to your scenario of Earth2 and an answer to this is that you can't enter a legal contract with an animal. Marriage is a civil union that is recognized by the state to confer privileges to the couple. When you toss an animal into this equation, the animal still isn't a factor since you don't enter legal contracts with animals, since, they're animals... | cmv |
Same - Sex Marriage is not about Equal Rights. CMV | You lost me at the marrying your roommate part. The only thing that might be keeping you from doing that now is that in most states you can't may someone of the same gender. Change that and just go crazy. I don't care if you're in love or not. So many marriages already have nothing to do with love. | cmv |
I believe that solitary confinement should never be a solution for dealing with any prisoner. CMV | I just don't think you appreciate how difficult it is to control a prison population. You're dealing with regular rape, coercion, and general threats, as well as makeshift, or hidden weapons. Even in low security prisons, you will find all these things. The fact of the matter is, that you need some type of punishment to stop these things. Prisoners having access to weapons puts other prisoners, and security guards, at risk. Simply confiscating the weapon is not enough, because, despite very carefully monitored, the prisoners that want weapons will find ways to access new weapons. The issue of rape is particularly disturbing ; prisoners will often find ways to coerce other prisoners into sex, or even group sex. Without solitary confinement, prison rape effectively goes unpunished. | cmv |
I believe that solitary confinement should never be a solution for dealing with any prisoner. CMV | Solitary is a punishment given for prisoners that are unruly or prove to be a danger to those around them. It is an extra deterrent for those who have already failed to be deterred from crime by the concept of prison. It costs more resources to allow seriously violent criminals the freedom to attack other " peaceful " prisoners or officers. It is also rarely a permanent punishment to be locked in solitary. Honestly, if you've been sentenced to solitary for an extraordinarily long period of time, it's likely you are a major threat to others or you brutally attacked many people. I think these people have sacrificed their rights by attacking others and continuing to do so after being imprisoned. | cmv |
I believe that solitary confinement should never be a solution for dealing with any prisoner. CMV | It is also the obligation of prisons to safeguard the well being on their employees and inmates. If an inmate has demonstrated that they are dangerous in a prison setting it wold be negligent to force other inmates to share space with them. It would recklessly expose inmates who are trying to rehabilitate to the threat of physical violence. | cmv |
I feel that the most important thing to do in the 21st century is make sure there are no " white " countries anymore. CMV | Well for one, you know there have been non - white imperial powers, right? ( Hi Japan! Hi, Ottoman Turkey! ) And of course, they committed atrocities just as bad as the " white " powers. For another thing, the concept of " white people " is a social construct mainly designed by white people. Who's in this social construct has changed quite a bit throughout the years ( e. g. 200 years ago Arabs were white and the Irish weren't. ) I don't think it makes much sense to hate people for membership in a totally arbitrary category. | cmv |
I feel that the most important thing to do in the 21st century is make sure there are no " white " countries anymore. CMV | I don't get it. Are you claiming white people should stop having kids with white people in white majority countries? What are you claiming should happen to reach this end? Is your implicit claim that being white is bad because white people have had the opportunity to be aggressors? | cmv |
I feel that the most important thing to do in the 21st century is make sure there are no " white " countries anymore. CMV | You sir, are a racist. You claim white people are always the ones to ruin everyone's happiness. This is crazy! Where are the white people setting off car bombs in the Middle East? Are white people the ones spreading AIDS in Africa? ( that last one is nature's fault really ) I can see why your friends would take offense. Unless they did something terrible that affects anyone, you don't have any right to blame their race for any of society's ills. | cmv |
I believe that stricter gun control laws focused on who can acquire weapons and what types is only ever beneficial to the safety of individual citizens. CMV | Gun control doesn't work because laws only apply to law - abiding citizens. Criminals can get their hands on guns regardless of the law. Also, I can't speak to your country, but in the United States, gun control has statistically proven to be ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst. | cmv |
I believe that stricter gun control laws focused on who can acquire weapons and what types is only ever beneficial to the safety of individual citizens. CMV | The reason gun control laws work in other nations is that other nations don't have gun violence like we do. Nations like Australia and Britain were peaceful long before they enacted strict gun control. As to your idea about " types " of weapons, you should know that the government definition of " assault weapons " has nothing to do with caliber, accuracy, or rate of fire. It's basically scary black guns. | cmv |
I don't plan on voting. CMV | My main issue with the presidential vote is that the public vote doesn't actually matter. Sure it " matters " as in, it should make your electoral college decide who to vote for, but that isn't the case. If you look at the 2008 election, Obama barely won the public vote, it was 1. 2 : 1, whereas the electoral college was closer to 2 : 1. End result was the same I know, but it should have been much closer than it was. | cmv |
The Superhero Movie Complex ( theory on gay marriage ). Please CMV | What struck me as weird was the statement " In 200 years, will history textbooks read " At one point in American history, double - transsexuals ( men pretending to be lesbians ) were discriminated against. " ". That should be the case right now... a persons gender and sexual identity are their own. And no, when someones tells me their gay, it changes virtually nothing in my thinking about them. If it's a dude, nothing at all. | cmv |
The Superhero Movie Complex ( theory on gay marriage ). Please CMV | I'm confused by your question as well. I have only one argument for while homosexuality must be innate ( natural ) : Do you really think people would choose to be gay, with all the difficulties that adds to their lives? Also, an argument that homosexuality is a choice assumes that everyone is bisexual. Most people who advance the choice - idea don't think of that. | cmv |
I feel any gun laws will not stop any violence and that trying to prohibit anything is a waste of time. CMV | Guess i'm a robber, I'm robbing you, Case 1 : I know you have a gun and i have one. I'm much more likely to shoot you, i'm watching every move you do, ready to shoot you, and if you take your gun, one of us will die. Case 2 : I know you don't have one ( or that you will have legal problem if you use a gun, and thus, would prefer not to ), I have one. I'm ready to shoot you, but on the other hand, i only want my money, and if i get caught, i'd have a lot more jail time if i kill you. Thus, i'll probably not be as nervous as in the Case 1, and i'll take your money, be rich, and not kill anyone. Or just get caught. Case 3 : I don't have a gun, you don't have either. I belive, this is where i get punched in the face. I'd say that guns make both sides more dangerous, but one could argue that gun controls will only disarms the lawful guys and give more power to the chaotics one. | cmv |
I feel any gun laws will not stop any violence and that trying to prohibit anything is a waste of time. CMV | From what I've seen of the argument in the context of the united states, you're partly right, gun control laws alone won't stop violence. At the same time though, the idea isn't so much to stop gun violence as it is to reduce the severity of it, and make it easier to bring people who commit it to justice. One segment of the argument I see largely ignored is that a lot of major shootings are committed by people with severe mental illnesses of some variety, and could have largely been prevented by easier access to mental health services. There's also the issue of the major stigma surrounding mental health issues in society that makes it absolutely terrifying to seek help even when one can. | cmv |
I feel any gun laws will not stop any violence and that trying to prohibit anything is a waste of time. CMV | Call me a simpleton but I feel this side of the argument boils down to one thing. A gun can't defend you if your dead. The criminal always has a chance to shoot first, seeing as they are the one who is initiating the engagement. You gun is only a defense against stupid, under trained and / or under prepared criminals. A good criminal knows to keep his victim in such a position that even reaching for a weapon will result in the victims quick death. | cmv |
I don't believe we the people have any practical say in government, and there's no use complaining about it. CMV | If we can show a message to not reelect senators who don't represent the people or what they stood for when running, we can fix the system. There is also a line they can't completely cross. Since Obama ran on pro gay marriage, your not going to see him changing that view ( Impeachable offense ). Our debt is for a high percentage owed within America and not other countries. Although don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the debt. As my federal government book put it, there are gateways open to citizens to stop the corruption, we just have to remain responsive and reactive by voting and contacting our senator IN OFFICE. Why do these horrible lobbyists get nasty bills past? It's because they spend there time pampering the senators and talking to them because no one else will. This is the reason why you see colleges be the ones to picket and stand up while no one else cares haha. | cmv |
I don't believe we the people have any practical say in government, and there's no use complaining about it. CMV | One other point : Take the issue of gay marriage. 20 years ago, it would have been political suicide for a politician to advocate allowing same sex couples to get married. Polls put support somewhere around 15 to 20 %. Now, in about one generation, one of the two major parties is in favor of it, the sitting president is in favor it, prominent members of the opposition party have switched their vote, and the issue polls at between 50 and 60 %. Even organizations opposed to SSM admit they've probably lost this issue and will likely change their focus over the next few years. If you think no change is ever possible, then how do you explain the shift in that issue? ( I picked one, but we can pick others I'm sure ). | cmv |
Marijuana should be legalized CMV | With the appalling state of American healthcare I don't think society is ready for drug legalization. Before legalization the drugs effects should be scientifically studied and there should be state funded rehab clinics. I don't think our government is currently able to provide those services in it's current capacity. | cmv |
Marijuana should be legalized CMV | The thing with weed is we really don't have a ton of studies detailing it's effects. Though it's true nobody has ever died from smoking dope, we still aren't aware of its effects on mental health. I know for me personally, I get horribly depressed if I smoke a couple days back to back, and I'm sure there is others like me. I'm not saying it should stay illegal, but rather, more tests / studies should be done before we legalize it. Just to drive my point home, there was a time when Cocaine was an over the counter medicine. | cmv |
I don't believe that any non - heterosexual orientation can logically be a choice. CMV. | Woody Allen reportedly said " Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night. " If I like chocolate, and I like vanilla - it puts me at a more advantageous position than someone who likes only vanilla or chocolate as I can enjoy more flavours. And we live in an era where it is fairly fair for people of an alternate orientation. Is the only reason you call it " not a logical choice " because of the fear of persecution? | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | Read The Better Angels of Our Nature : Why Violence Has Declined by Steven Pinker, or see the talk. He gives a well thought - out, data - driven argument that humanity is consistently improving with time. We are both angels and devils, but the angels seem to be ( slowly ) winning. | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | I have a somewhat different take on this. I believe that the nature of man is selfish. All of what we do, it is done in the name of self preservation. Be that collective security ( subjugation of minorities ), the quest for dominance ( abuse of power ), or asserting self importance / worth ( subjugation of women ). Is this inherently wrong or immoral? In my view, it isn't. It is no different than instinct. We as humans tend to elevate ourselves over other species, when in reality, our nature is no different. We are not good nor bad, just natural. | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | We often take the actions of a society to be representative of the entire human species. What is important to remember is that these societies are governed by a minority of the population who are often seeking to maintain power for themselves. Fear mongering is an amazing way to keep power. By creating a scapegoat to blame all of a group's woes on they are able to coerce the population into granting the minority more power. Although in governance women have had a small role in Native American and ancient societies women were not treated as second class citizens. I think that it is the nature of power that turns people " bad " but the nature of man is not inherently bad. | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | You are referring to the nature of society and calling it the nature of man. Now on average any one man will be neither good or bad. Seeing as good means " better than average " and bad means " worse than average ". Now in society, bad people more often rise to the top. It has always been this way. Bad people are just more willing to do whatever it takes. So I agree that the nature of of society is bad. The nature of man is not. | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | I recommend the book Ishmael - it presents the Biblical story of the creation and fall of man as a story written in ancient times about the rise of civilization. The " nature " you're referring to is largely cultural - a product of a way of life started 10, 000 years ago when the managerial class first emerged in human society. What we think of as " human nature " is a byproduct of a culture that values dominance over cooperation. | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | But how does mistreating the " other " make the very basic nature of man bad in light of the kindness they show to people similar in some way to themselves? Surely they would simply be neutral? Imagine a horrible racist who also gives a large portion of their income to charity and volunteers frequently. Are they an objectively " bad " person? Aren't they just conflicted, or somehow flawed? | cmv |
The nature of man is basically bad. CMV | Simply put, the easy road is taken when available ( as a general rule ). Thus, in the long run abuses occur wherever and whenever possible based upon whatever system exists ( both naturally and then later socially, politically, economically, geographically, geopolitically, and so on ). People are not evil or good, but rather potentially short - sightedly efficient at survival and self - preservation. This attention to the self ( at first onset ) provides the historical events that appear to be evil at face value, but as society progresses in advancement, evil acts appear to diminish overall as civility creeps in. However, civility is only a few weeks away from complete chaos at any given time ( depending on the indoctrination and measurable instillation of moral codes - whatever they might be ). | cmv |
If there ever was a'superhero'type person among us, our world would destroy itself by the panic and envy from the world government's who would be unable to harness that power. - CMV | Depends on the superpower But let's say someone with Superman like power came to the U. S. I have a suspicion that many people would worship him as a god. No government can wage a war if it's people refuse to fight. If people were to learn that there really was this person with superpowers I don't think they would fight at all. Then again, the governments also have to look at the situation practically. Is this person unstoppable? How does an aircraft carrier fight someone who can fly at the speed of light and smash through the hull like it is nothing? What would be the use? Just ally yourself with whoever this person is or wherever they are from and you're more likely to survive. If another country does mess with them, they have superman as backup. | cmv |
If there ever was a'superhero'type person among us, our world would destroy itself by the panic and envy from the world government's who would be unable to harness that power. - CMV | I believe that a superman type " threat " would be one of the few things that would actually unite the world's governments. Just like the alien " threat " of countless blockbusters, the governments of the world would see that their interests are better served by banding together against this menace. Call it the Ozymandias Theory of Unification. | cmv |
In the context of sexual attraction between male and female, I don't think equality will ever be attained. CMV | In what may be an inconceivably distant future, I can imagine a power dynamic where the dominant partner was not'supposed'to be of either gender. Where the idea of a'househusband'is perfectly natural, to the point of non - issue far beyond the most liberal mindsets of today. In this future, while physical attractiveness is still the primary method of selection, the stereotypically attractive traits of dominance, success, coolness etc would have absolutely no relation to gender. A makeup advertisement might feature a very attractive man and woman, both assuming the role we consider today to be feminine. Beer commercials might feature masculine men and women being pursued by feminine people of both genders. We will never be gender blind, but if the same human has the freedom to assume any gender role at their discretion, I believe it would / could be considered true equality. Someone will always be objectified, but if everyone has equal opportunity to become the object, I contest your scenario would be fulfilled? | cmv |
In the context of sexual attraction between male and female, I don't think equality will ever be attained. CMV | The problem is that people are confusing'equal value'with'equal role.'Consider masculine and feminine to be like poles of a magnet. If they are the same, there is no charge. But though they are different, they are equally important. | cmv |
The U. S. Military should pull out of every country it's stationed or occupied in, the U. S. should not initiate war, all military spending should be for defense, and we should leave countries we defend to fund their own militaries. CMV | This is a highly complicated topic, so I'll just talk about the specific case of our military presence in Japan. First, Japan isn't allowed to have its own military due to the terms of their surrender during WWII. While most of the world would be okay with Japan regaining a military, China and Japan continue to have strained relations, and China very much wants Japan to remain without a military. With China the biggest rival to US power on the international stage, maintaining good relations with them is quite important. So the US has an interest in keeping Japan from rebuilding their own military to keep China happy. However, especially with the threat of North Korea, it would be immoral to leave Japan defenseless. As the US took on the role of providing for Japan's defense after their surrender in WWII, there is simply no feasible way to discontinue that in the near future. Strategically, the US also has an interest in maintaining military bases in Japan because of it's location near North Korea, and the fact that we are then able to maintain control over the Pacific Ocean more easily in the event of any war scenario. Our military bases in Japan are also used to launch search and rescue missions from - we have worldwide trade, and just be able to protect out citizens engaging in shipping anywhere in the world. | cmv |
I don't believe that " security " makes us safer. At all. CMV | This is true in the US security industry, because the incentive structure doesn't really promote safety. But look at certain other nations - for instance, Israel. El Al has different security measures than US planes. They ask more questions but ban fewer items. They pay more attention to people and less to lists. As a result, nobody has successfully bombed an El Al flight. The TSA makes us less safe, because it is security theater rather than real security. | cmv |
I don't believe that " security " makes us safer. At all. CMV | Imagine 2 situations, in both situations it is a street corner with a small bank. situation 1 does not have a police man standing on the street corner, but situation 2 does. Now, the police man may not necessarily do anything WHEN a robbery happens, but the fact that he is there will psychologically discourage someone from robbing the bank. | cmv |
I think that sex - selective abortion is always wrong. CMV | Although I agree with you, in a way, I have two reasons : Making any sort of abortion, including sex - selective abortion, more difficult to acomplish either through laws or societal pressure won't diminish the number of abortions, It will simply drive woman underground and force them to have unsafe procedures. Condoning and accepting abortion will ensure that abortions are at least done safely and legally. The point of being pro - choice is to allow woman to choose. You can disagree with their choice, but you shouldn't believe that your opinions should carry greater weight in our laws or society. I, personally, would never have an abortion, sex - selective or otherwise ( at least I think so now, but you never know ). But I understand that other people think differently, and that they have the right to choose differently than me. | cmv |
I think that sex - selective abortion is always wrong. CMV | i mean, either you think the fetus is alive or you dont. if its not actually a living person yet, and just cells, why does it matter? It seems inconsistant that someone pro - choice would have moral qualms only in some scenarios. Also do you really want parents that don't want a daughter to raise one? ive seen it happen and when their next kid is a boy the favoritism is unreal. | cmv |
I don't believe that the Constitution should define United States law. CMV. | " The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity - unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity. All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent, virtuous, and religious Judiciary. " - President John Henry Eden | cmv |
Appeals to emotion don't belong in discussion of legislative proposals. CMV. | Arguing that emotional appeals should be disregarded assumes that there are appeals which can be made on other, more legitimate, grounds. I would suggest that these are just as flawed in other ways. Arguments from reason need to appeal to something - whether it be morality, psychology or history, and these claims would be open to criticisms of interpretation, bias and fallacy as well. Given that all arguments have potential flaws, respecting ones which are made from a basis of empathy and emotion seems more like a way to ensure that a clearer presentation of the issue is made, rather than just obscuring facts and reason. Emotion does not necessarily'cloud'judgement - it can also inform it. | cmv |
Appeals to emotion don't belong in discussion of legislative proposals. CMV. | Perhaps I have grown cynical, but I have stopped caring if people pass the " right legislation for the right reasons " and have become content if they merely pass the " right legislation for any reason ". If the better status quo comes about it is essentially unimportant how that law was passed. Similarly you do great harm to society, when you attempt to take the high road and end up failing to pass legislation that would be of great aid to a large number of people. tl ; dr While in an ideal world we should focus on logical discourse, in reality if that means the suffering of many it is irresponsible not to utilize the means you have at your disposal. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. | cmv |
Appeals to emotion don't belong in discussion of legislative proposals. CMV. | Ultimately all arguments are emotional appeals : If I had no emotions, you could give me any evidence you want and I could just say " why should I care? " " But this study proves that fewer guns cause less crime. " " I don't care, crime sounds fine to me. " " But crime hurts people. " " I'm okay with that. " " But crime hurts people, including you " " That's fine. " If you can't connect an argument to an emotion at some point it will never succeed. The point of reason is not to be an uncaring robot, the point is that once you do have something that you want reason helps you achieve it in the most effective way possible. | cmv |
I think that a large amount of posts on / r / politics are done by PAID BLOGGERS rather than... Ya know... Us Folks. Please, only cause I used to really enjoy that sub... [ CMV ] | I checked the top 5 current posts on r / politics, and only one of the posters was suspiciously only posting in / r / politics with no comments. The rest had a sufficient amount of comments or submissions in other subreddits. I also checked the " new " tab, and the vast majority of submissions are by regular redditors. There is probably a much higher presence of " paid bloggers " on the front page in proportion to the rest of the r / politics population because they have more time to post faster and cater towards reddits'preferences. In any case, I am not really sure it matters if there are paid bloggers posting. We still have the power of the vote and comment, which is fairly indicative in the link you provided ( submission has less karma than the top comment ). It would only be really significant if they were rigging the vote system somehow. | cmv |
I believe everyone from the South are bigoted, gun - wielding, super conservative, dense people. CMV | Being from outside the US ( England specifically ) every bone in my body as a result of the way the South is represented by your politicians makes me agree with you. However! The issue here is one of representation, normally it is the crazies which shout the loudest and thus are the ones whose opinions are heard. An example would be that you see plenty of pictures of bigots on the streets with anti - everything signs but few pictures of sane people with pro signs. Furthermore the sane ideals are very much frowned upon in some communities so it is not in your interests to shout from the rooftops of a christian neighborhood that you are an atheist. In short while your generalisation does apply to many, it doesn't apply to all. If everyone in the South who is sane stood up and shouted rather than being repressed by the crazies you would find there are many more than you initially thought. | cmv |
I believe everyone from the South are bigoted, gun - wielding, super conservative, dense people. CMV | I don't know where you currently reside, but I'm sure that there is some diversity there as well. People may generally feel a certain way across issues in a given town, city or region, but there are definitely people who don't feel the same way. I can tell you that I used to live in the south and I don't fit your description of people from that area. It's definitely a prevalent stereotype for a reason, but everyone doesn't feel the same way. If you want some proof, look at how people voted in the last election for these states. Though these states pretty much went red, it wasn't 100 % conservative. | cmv |
I believe everyone from the South are bigoted, gun - wielding, super conservative, dense people. CMV | In the 2012 Presidential election a whole bunch of Southerners voted for Obama : SC - 845k ( 44 % of the vote ), GA - 1761k ( 45 % ), AL - 793k ( 38 % ), MS - 528k ( 43 % ) And of course many more from other Southern states. So clearly not everyone. | cmv |
I believe everyone from the South are bigoted, gun - wielding, super conservative, dense people. CMV | Would it be fair for me to call you a socialist, weak, sheltered, vegetarian, tree - hugging hippy because you're diametrically opposed to people who have these views? Probably not. And even if you do hold to some of those ideals, I'm definitely making an unfair judgment on said views and on you as well. The thing about living in pluralistic society is that you've gotta be able to tolerate people who espouse views completely different from your own, and permit them the right to follow their own path, as you would expect the same courtesy from them. You don't have to agree, and hell, you can debate and argue all you want. Just remember that people are a lot more nuanced than their stereotypes. | cmv |
I believe everyone from the South are bigoted, gun - wielding, super conservative, dense people. CMV | The south just has a larger population of those kinds of people than the opposite. You only hear them because they are the majority and make the most noise, as opposed to their counterparts. Therefore, you'd think that they're all like that, when really people who aren't just stay silent. If you went to a classroom of 20 kids and twelve of the kids told you they liked vanilla ice cream, and just kept saying that they did over the answers of the other kids, would you automatically assume the other 8 did, too, even if you didn't hear them? | cmv |
I believe everyone from the South are bigoted, gun - wielding, super conservative, dense people. CMV | I am a woman from the south. I don't fit this description nor do many people I know. the type of ignorance you describe is rampant in my area, however me and mine manage to mostly avoid it... except of course by way of our state representatives, they're blithering idiots. for reference my city's population is about 60k. my state is notorious for being ignorant. | cmv |
I believe vivisection should be banned, even for medical research. CMV. | How are you defining vivisection? It's a somewhat charged word that people don't use much anymore. Vivisection is performing a surgical procedure on a living animal and it is usually done under anesthesia. Surgeons in training use anesthetized vivisection to learn specific surgical procedures. Scientists use vivisection to develop and test new drugs, new surgical procedures, study the brain, etc... These things advance medical science. As for cruelty : anything done with or without anesthesia on an animal in a laboratory must be approved by a group outside the lab. In university settings, that group is the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee and it typically consists of a few scientists, a veterinarian, and a member of the public. There is also another group, AAALAC, that gives accreditation to universities that use proper animal use procedures. If you are a scientist at an institution without AAALAC approval, it is very difficult to receive research funding. | cmv |
I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV | i'm with you on this except for the fact i feel safe abortions are a societal necessity. we have around 800, 000 abortions a year. that would be a lot more people needing public assistance even if only a tenth needed it. making an activity illegal doesn't stop it from happening. i feel pushing for better reproductive health education and birth control availability is super important. | cmv |
I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV | Actually, the pro - choice argument is that a fetus isn't developed enough to suffer in all the ways the mother can if you treat her body like a vine to harvest tomatoes from. Also, you won't stop abortion by making it illegal. Do you know what a clotheshanger can do? It's just one of many solutions available to a desperate woman. You aren't pro - life if all you hope to achieve is to simply make abortion more dangerous, and you aren't pro - life if you avoid thinking about the consequences of your position just to feel like you're a hero. A fetus isn't the same as a mother. It isn't even the same as an infant. Pretending otherwise won't change a thing. | cmv |
I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV | This mentality might come off as cruel, but here is my perspective : Say I have a set of healthy lungs, and the person next to me absolutely needs a lung, or else he dies. Am I legally obligated to have a lung surgically removed for him? Should I have to suffer because he has fallen upon bad fortune? Why should someone give ( painful ) life support to a child that they aren't interested in having? | cmv |
I believe that abortion should be illegal due to the possibility of fetuses being human beings CMV | A group of human cells is not a human. It has the possibility to become a human, but it is not yet a human. If a fetus, which may live one day ( if the mother is healthy, the child does not have terrible mutation, and a miscarriage doesn't occur ), shouldn't be killed because it might be a human one day, then soon we'll be talking about masturbation. A wad of semen could have one day created a baby had the man not masturbated, but now that chance for life is gone. ( credit to Lawrence Krauss. Whom I heard make this argument superlatively ) | cmv |
I am not convinced that " worse than death " is a meaningful statement from the point of view of the victim because the victim is well ; dead. And hence cannot contemplate what has happened to them. CMV. | While I agree with the idea that nothing is worse than death, the phrase " worse than death " here is being used to refer to post - humous indignities. When most people use this phrase, it refers to pre - humous suffering. I think you need to redefine the scope of your argument. For that matter you're assuming that all negative experiences must be worse than the " central point " of death, as if it was the freezing point of water. Death with no afterlife is actually more like 0 Kelvin. | cmv |
I believe individualism is the greatest threat to a society's existence. CMV | Will Durant observed that ( all histortical ) civilizations rose and fell with their " religion ". I would say the statement is broadly true, because rigid doctrines can't help successive generations of society adapt. Individual growth and rationale on the other hand can help a man adapt to any environment. Collectivist identity breeds the former. Individualism promotes change according to the requirement of the time / environment provided individuals use rationale. Now all change isn't progress, but all progress is change. Also, man unlike most other animals, increasingly values quality ( one individual can help foster a lot of growth across his lifetime for both himself and society ) over quantity ( collective identity ). Thus making individualism the better bet for progress of a society. | cmv |
I believe some women do " ask for it. " CMV | This is a bit insulting to me as a male. You're basically saying, that my natural state is a rapist. That, given the opportunity, my natural urge is to rape someone. When you are mugged, no one judges your mental state. No one judges what part of town you were in. No one judges what you wore. The police actively pursue the person that mugged you. 100 % of the blame for rape goes to the person who is doing the raping. It's atrocious nonsense to blame the victim. | cmv |
I believe some women do " ask for it. " CMV | Every single behavior comes with inherent risks to a lesser or greater extent. I guarantee many activities you choose to do have a higher risk of negative outcome then a women merely being around intoxicated men. The fact that you believe she is responsible when she is faced with an unpredictable horrible outcome, while you almost certainly wouldn't say the same for any other person is extremely hypocritical. For instance, everyone knows that driving comes with huge risks. Many people die in car crashes every year. Yet when someone does you never hear anyone saying that they were asking to die or that it was somehow their own fault. Your judgement implicitly rests on a long standing historical double standard where women are uniquely responsible for protecting their sexual purity. The idea that women are responsible for responding to the threat of rape by drastically curtailing their life choices is both unfair and deeply inequitable. | cmv |
I believe some women do " ask for it. " CMV | so you believe that when men drink alcohol, their inhibitions are so lowered that they cannot help but rape a woman? I think what you're actually saying is that men shouldn't drink alcohol if women are around. because it's much more reasonable to put the responsibility on the person who could potentially rape someone than the person who could potentially get raped | cmv |
I believe some women do " ask for it. " CMV | I find it interesting that this quote has affected you so, in yet, you only apply it to women. Maybe a " drunken, testosterone - fueled man " should be the one staying away from parties and alcohol. If you really can't look at a women in revealing clothing without feeling the urge to rape her, then you should probably change yourself rather than expecting women to change. | cmv |
I believe some women do " ask for it. " CMV | Consider this : Does calling out a rape victim after the fact actually help in any conceivable circumstance? Rubbing salt in a wound incenses the listener and does nothing to prevent future crimes, and preventing future crimes should be the only concern. For that matter who gets to draw the line as to what a reasonable avoidance of harm is? Your same line of reasoning leads to women being forced to wear burkhas " for their own benefit " because of the assumption that men are too sexually aggressive to be able to control themselves without it. In addition, it's sexist against men to assume that these circumstances alone are what leads to an unpreventable or nearly - unpreventable crime. A decision is made to disregard consent in every case. And I agree with the other arguments being presented that expecting one gender to adopt a different lifestyle compared to everyone else is itself inherently immoral. | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | You should read up about how management consulting firms in health care help pharmaceutical companies make money. Ex. Trinity Partners, Health Advances, etc in the Boston Area. A combination of patent law and public offerings make it so the market for a particular indication is always going to be monopolized by one or two companies. Also, only research in chronic therapies will be funded. I've worked in the field. It's much worse than anyone outside realizes, it's pretty unfortunate that anyone criticizing pharmaceutical companies is branded as a loony soap boxer nowadays. | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | You're probably right, a well - regulated private system would be very beneficial. But a major caveat is that regulations can be circumvented, poorly enforced, or removed altogether. This is especially so in a political system that is largely funded by private interests, like the U. S. For instance, deregulation and failed regulation of the investment banking system in the U. S. are considered to be major causes of the housing bubble collapse. | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | When attempting to provide a staple good or service at minimal cost to the consumer profit becomes an inefficiency. While there may be a market incentive to reduce costs there is rarely if ever a market incentive to minimize profits. Also, I surmise that the total legislative work required to institute and maintain effective and efficient regulatory legislation over private healthcare is greater than that required to create and maintain a public healthcare entity. | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | That depends on how you define " superior. " A universal health care system will almost certainly benefit more people, since resources are distributed equally. A private system might be more efficient, and thus have a greater total amount of resources to distribute, but they'll benefit those who can pay more almost exclusively. You might also be arguing that taxation is inherently immoral, so a system that doesn't rely on it is automatically superior to one that does. Which one of those arguments are you making? | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | TCMV To sum up why I think taxpayer funded is better ( a combination of tmlfan and froolow's points! ) : 1 ) Information asymmetry inevitably causes doctors to provide more treatment than is necessary in a private system. It also makes it very hard for patients to choose between providers. 2 ) People who are sick through no fault of their own should have their healthcare subsidized by healthier people. This is automatically done in a taxpayer system, and would require significant regulation in a private system. 3 ) Sick people are more likely to avoid the doctor under a private system, possibly costing the system more than it saves down the road, as preventable conditions turn into chronic illnesses. 4 ) Just thought of this - a private system would involve huge costs going towards marketing. This is money that would go directly to treating people under a public system. 5 ) There are many aspects of healthcare that simply require a state system, such as emergency medicine, there is no way that would work if privatised. 6 ) Centralization works in medicine, there are many economies of scale ( but more regarding health outcomes than cost - as one of you two said, better to do a procedure 400 times a year in one place than 40 times in ten different places ) thanks! | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | What is the difference between severe regulation and being government owned? Ultimately, IMHO, having your medical requirements tended to by any organsiation with a motivation of profit is a recipe for issues. If the goal of your insurer is to make money, it is not in their interest for you to receive full care. By having a totally tax funded system, you ensure that those who can least afford it will always be adequately cared for. | cmv |
I believe a private, market based healthcare system is superior to a tax payer funded one. CMV. | My personal belief is that in healthcare, the primary objective should be to help people. My concern about private systems, and the changes that have happened / are happening within the NHS is that when a business is run to make profit, that is the primary objective, and caring for people becomes less important. Now I'm not saying that private healthcare providers are evil and don't care about people, I'm sure there could be a private system that works ok, provided there's full provision for people who can't afford it. It just worries me that people within the organisations who make decisions about how money is spent may be doing it solely on a basis of saving money, and might not put as much emphasis on quality of care as I would like. | cmv |
I think morality is subjective CMV. | I think that there are very few people who enjoy being slowly tortured, raped, and then murdered without any reason, and that just because someone can claim it's moral to do all of these things, doesn't mean it actually is. Otherwise, it wouldn't be hidden, and justifications for why it was necessary to avoid a greater evil wouldn't need to be invented. The problem is that those without any working empathy are allowed to claim that " what feels right in the moment, no matter who it hurts " is also a legitimate form of ethics, in much the same way others claim that their child's public tantrum is adorable. Just because abstract principles are invisible to you, doesn't mean they can be whatever the hell you want them to be. | cmv |
I think morality is subjective CMV. | Morality can generally be modelled as a maximization problem of well - being versus resources. People differ in their opinion as to whose well being should be valued, but excluding the absolutist extremes ( strict Objectivism being one ) you tend to get a mix of the human species and individual life being the subjects whose interests should be considered. Rationality is the process by which we analyze what choices will maximize the well - being of an individual or our environment based on the context we are given. This already accounts for and incorporates the influence of society during any age. Ergo, despite popular belief dictating that they are perpetually at odds, rationality and morality are actually one and the same. The moral codes of various civilizations are all approximations of a function we have not yet completely solved, but there is an objectively correct answer that our decision making process attempts to work toward. And rationality is objective. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | One could argue that militarism is so ingrained in our culture that when one makes a joke about death or murder, it doesn't immediately bring to mind horrific flashbacks of every loved one that a person has ever lost. Rape occupies a different place in the popular consciousness right now, and so tonedeaf jokes concerning it can cause individuals a large amount of psychological distress in exchange for no meaningful benefit. It probably depends on the joke too. Obviously a joke with a clear subtext of being sympathetic to the concept of rape isn't the same as a joke which simply involves the word, for example. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | In my opinion, the unwritten contract between a comedian ( or a joke ) and the listener is simple : if you are funny, you can say what you want. When a joke isn't actually funny is when people get offended and complain. If you can make someone laugh, no matter the subject, you'll get away with whatever it's about. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | A general rule of thumb for rape jokes : Is the punchline that someone was raped? If not, that is a good rape joke ; if so, that is a bad rape joke. Most rape jokes are bad rape jokes, because not that many people are capable of being very funny about such a sensitive topic. Louis CK is an example of someone who can tell a good rape joke. He is the exception rather than the rule. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | The one common factor among convicted rapists, is that their view of rape is " that everyone does it ", or that it's " normal. " This is the relevant difference between a " rape joke " and a murder or torture joke. When people tell rape jokes, it re - enforces the idea that women are possessions, things that are " less " than men. When other people laugh at the joke, it further " normalizes " the idea that rape is not a serious matter. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | Its not so much as the joke but the way it presents rape. Most rape jokes I have heard of treat rape as if it were a victory or conquest and celebrated in the way healthy competitive winning is. Additionally, the use of the word " rape " in everyday sentences such as " I raped you in the game " or " I raped his arguments " or " You raped the exams " gives a sense of positive warrior - like conquest - feeling to it, and reinforces that subconscious association we have at the back of our minds. On the other hand, black humor, when using murder and torture, potray them as something absurd and abnormal and therefore funny, while most rape jokes potray rape as something normal, positive with an orgasmic sense of victory or EPIC VICTORY. Additionally, when dealing with humor, its not the intent but rather the consequence that matters. There should not be any restrictions on the intent since that would be censorship. However, where there is a high chance of intent not matching the consequence, and probability of unintentionally hurting someone without making any point, it is wise to drop it off. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | I never have a problem with rape jokes. Then my girlfriend got raped. I still don't have a problem, I have a sense of humor so I know it's all fun and games. But now a days I just ignore them and go about my day avoiding reading them as best as I can. | cmv |
I see nothing wrong with rape jokes. CMV | Trouble occurs with rape jokes because many people have many different ideas about what rape actually is. The most notable idea is that rape is only when a stranger is attacked and violated through physical coercion, implying that anything else is not really rape. There are rapists out there who don't know they're rapists, and many of them might not even be malicious people. They might just be people who are uneducated about consent and didn't really appreciate that they were doing something wrong especially if they're still young. For all we know many of them could be upstanding people who wouldn't have raped if only they knew more about consent beforehand. Edit : Personally I think it's harmful that these people and violent malicious people are both referred to in the same breath as " rapists " when obviously there is a huge difference in mindset between the two groups and there should be vocabulary to reflect that, but that's a totally different issue. Anyway, this means that rape jokes can reinforce the idea that rape is okay, especially when the word rape isn't even used in the joke. That's not to say that every rape joke does this, but some definitely can. I really think that jokes on any subject can be appropriate if it's presented in the right way and in the right context. It's just that some topics, like rape, require more attention to make appropriate than other topics. | cmv |
I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV | Abortion ( in the first trimester ) is the termination of a fetus with absolutely no form of personhood. It possess's no higher functions and is completely incapable of thinking. Although it has the potential to become a fully formed, thinking, feeling human being, just like any of the eggs in the mothers ovaries or sperm in the fathers testicles does. It fundamentally possess's none of the qualities we think of as being human. Up until the latter end of the first trimester it does not even have a beating heart of its own. How is it that you be so strong in your conviction that it is a human and its termination deserving of the same condemnation as the murder of a fully developed human with a life of its own? | cmv |
I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV | Mmk, lets have a scenario. Lets hope this stays just hypothetical, but lets say that your SO or parent or someone is in a horrible car accident and they're pronounced officially braindead. They're on life support and can remain so indefinitely but there is no hope of recovery - they are literally braindead. They are the full body of a human being, but the thought center, the thing that makes them a real human being is dead. You have the option to pull the plug or not. Which do you choose? If you choose to pull the plug, did you and the doctors just commit murder? Was that person really alive in the truest sense of the word? There are rules that a fetus can only be aborted within a certain time period so it's not up to a more advanced development point. It does not think, it is essentially brain dead and the womb is the life support. | cmv |
I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV | Many fertilized eggs fail to attach to the wall of the uterus and are flushed out of the body. Do you think these deaths should be prevented? Should a woman be forced to carry all fertilized eggs to term, if this is possible? If not, then choosing which ones she has to keep and which ones she doesn't is and arbitrary issue. | cmv |
I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV | Hypothetical question : If you had the opportunity to prevent three women from having abortions or one man from shooting a three year old girl in the head, and you can only choose one, which would you pick? If you truly believe that abortion is murder, than you would have no problem choosing three lives over one ; if you have a hesitation to choose that option than you have an internal conflict with the label'murder '. I think before a certain point we must realize that " an acorn is not a tree ". | cmv |
I cannot get the idea out of my head that abortion is murder. CMV | Tossing religious views aside, sentience is associated with having a nervous system - it makes us aware of our existence. A fetus in early stages as well as a plant doesn't have this - they are living but non - sentient. As far as potential is concerned, every separated sperm and egg also have the potential. To actively choose not to unite them is also a choice to prevent a human from coming into existence. This equates the two things. A separated sperm and egg and a united seprm and egg are just two different stages of development, none of which are sentient, and both have the potential of becoming sentient but are not so at the present. | cmv |