NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a question for everyone: why do we argue about opinions on things like abortion or gay rights or whatever and try to stop people from making their own decisions?
I'm currently reading about teh 1980s and hearing about people standing outside of abortion clinics to block the way so people can't get in.
Why do this?
Everyone has their own opinion and everyone has their own ability to chose.
So why try to keep people from doing something they believe in? Why make them fight for what they see is right when in reality everyone sees right and wrong differently?
If anyone has an answer and not just a flame bashing what I said I'd love to here what it is.

When it comes to telling people what to do, especially when it comes to things such as abortion clinics, I beleive the correct answer is "God told me to do it".

I have a question for everyone: why do we argue about opinions on things like abortion or gay rights or whatever and try to stop people from making their own decisions?

Cuz it makes me feel like a big man!

That, and I masturbate to pictures of gay aborted fetuses.

Because this is the price of free will, stupidity. It will always be their, until humans are perfect this shit will always be an issue. ANd because we will never be perfect, their will always be an issue. Thank you.

but I can also say God is encouraging me to say aborition is good. All you have to do is look at the levels of STD's which have risin greatly over the years. They're killing and infecting millions of people. To me, if I believed in God, that would say stop having sex, stop having kids.
But what about for other issues like gay rights? Or women's rights? What do you say about those?

Because people have a tendency to believe that they are right and they want you to be right too.

Because this is the price of free will, stupidity. It will always be their, until humans are perfect this shit will always be an issue. ANd because we will never be perfect, their will always be an issue. Thank you.

I tend to agree with you. I guess I'm just against forcing yoru beliefs on others, being a free thinker myself.

Because people have a tendency to believe that they are right and they want you to be right too.

so they think there is only one answer to things. Interesting.

Because the yanks think god speaks to them through guns and hamburgers?

God told me not to give a shit. Heaven digs apathy.

Don't insult Yankees. I'm one myself and they have a none conservative side that I saw.
But seiously, does anyone have a reason besides religion? All I ever hear is god this or god that. I want to here someone give a reason besides that of religion. You don't need a god to have morals and you don't need a got to provide reasons for those morals.

It's like, why is murder illegal? Some people think it's OK to kill that guy who looked at you cock-eyed but it's generally accepted to be wrong. On these other issues, things aren't as black and white it seems and where people stand on different issues varies greatly along the spectrum.
Even though things don't effect people directly, they still have an opinion to voice and want a say in how things are done. E.g. if some guy in Kenya gets killed, me being from Australia, I am not affected by it at all. I still don't think the guy should have gotten killed though, I feel so sure about that and feel that the guy getting killed was so wrong that I should persuade others to agree. That is my opinion on the matter.

People have these same opinions about the issues you mentioned too.

Also, this is an internet discussion board and if it wasn't for things like this, we wouldn't have as much to discuss and these types of discussion are best suited and thus likely to gravitate and flourish in this environment.

Yeah :D

Don't insult Yankees. I'm one myself and they have a none conservative side that I saw.
But seiously, does anyone have a reason besides religion? All I ever hear is god this or god that. I want to here someone give a reason besides that of religion. You don't need a god to have morals and you don't need a got to provide reasons for those morals.

Well, how about people's rights. What are people's rights and should they be allowed to be infringed upon by others, if so in what circumstances. Also, who is entitled to these rights and who isn't. Finally, who and how are people going to secure these rights?

EDIT : 400th post, \/\/00+

Don't insult Yankees. I'm one myself and they have a none conservative side that I saw.
But seiously, does anyone have a reason besides religion? All I ever hear is god this or god that. I want to here someone give a reason besides that of religion. You don't need a god to have morals and you don't need a got to provide reasons for those morals.

So the americans aren't conservative, eh? :rolleyes:

The only anti-abortion people I've heard from in here are the jesus-people from america. So I guess you're right, there are few other reasons besides "god will smite thee".

you have a point. And I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions. What I have an issue with is physically trying to force your ideas on people, be it through legislation or physical force. I dont' see why thats necessary.

I have a question for everyone: why do we argue about opinions on things like abortion or gay rights or whatever and try to stop people from making their own decisions?
I'm currently reading about teh 1980s and hearing about people standing outside of abortion clinics to block the way so people can't get in.
Why do this?
Everyone has their own opinion and everyone has their own ability to chose.
So why try to keep people from doing something they believe in? Why make them fight for what they see is right when in reality everyone sees right and wrong differently?
If anyone has an answer and not just a flame bashing what I said I'd love to here what it is.
People have strong beliefs. Think of it this way: conservatives view fetuses as living human beings. Following that logic, abortion would be murder, right? And wouldn't you want to stop murder?

It all depends on what you perceive is happening.

you have a point. And I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions. What I have an issue with is physically trying to force your ideas on people, be it through legislation or physical force. I dont' see why thats necessary.

I agree with the physical force part. For example stopping someone getting an abortion by blocking the doorway. However, are you against all legislation, for example, should laws against murder be taken off the books? [I realise I've always used the murder analogy but it's a nice clear example as most people will agree that murder is a negative]

I agree with the physical force part. For example stopping someone getting an abortion by blocking the doorway. However, are you against all legislation, for example, should laws against murder be taken off the books? [I realise I've always used the murder analogy but it's a nice clear example as most people will agree that murder is a negative]
Well, you also have to look at that as well because not everything that you think is murder is murder to someone else. Death penalty: murder or not?

Well, you also have to look at that as well because not everything that you think is murder is murder to someone else. Death penalty: murder or not?

Personally, I consider it to be murder. However, if someone killed a loved one of mine, I would be happy enough to murder that criminal so that's a big contradiction in my views on things I feel. However, one thing I will say about the death penatly, I think being in prison for 50 years and then dying, possibly painfully, is a worse punishment than lethal injection so I don't see the point of the death penalty at all, especially seeing as they as still fairly expensive and thus no more cost effective than a lengthy prison sentence anyway.

Back to the point of the thread, should we legalise murder? I think if there was any where that legislation would begin, this would be the first law created. I think it's a good starting point as it is one of the clearest acts of someone infringing upon someone else's rights. That being the right to live. From here, others laws to protect people's rights are created.

When people argue about issues, it's often about 2 things. 1) People's rights - such as with abortion, the main issues are the woman's right to do with her body as she pleases and the babies right to develop without interference, though that is more about weather the fetus is entitled to those rights or not.
2) Is it the government's position to step in and infringe on people's rights. A good example of this is drug laws, should drugs be de-criminalised? Isn't it each person's right to put into their own body what they like? Or, as part of the government's duty is to protect citizens, should the government also protect us from ourselves and the damaging affects of drug use?

It's the clash of these two things and what different people believe to be thier rights, the rights of others and who deserves the same/different rights than they do which 'cause conflicts of opinions on these matters.

It's quite simple, we're bored as all hell. We don't need to slave away in the fields for 12 hours and day and then some so we need SOMETHING to do for entertainment. I mean, why play this game, write rude posts, or join an activist group protesting the use of wombats in baby food unless you had too much time on your hands?

What he said ^^.

And what Keru said.

When it comes to telling people what to do, especially when it comes to things such as abortion clinics, I beleive the correct answer is "God told me to do it".

My reply "You always do what you're told?"

Hehe...I make myself chuckle

I have a question for everyone: why do we argue about opinions on things like abortion or gay rights or whatever and try to stop people from making their own decisions?

--snip--


Well, from all the responses I've read before attempting this post, I can certainly see many motivators: religion, boredom, ego, condescending paternalism, and so forth. They're all correct, in my view, and they're all symptomatic of an overarching umbrella of a reason: the need for an enemy.

Society has a need to feel an "us" versus "them" vibe in their lives. Without this, we'd never see soccer riots or sports brawls in the stands. The need to fight for our survival angainst a "them" that in the past wanted to erase the "us" in order to get more food or more land on which to expand their own "us" has been largely eradicated. Hence the need for sports rivalries. Listen to the words used to urge on teams by the more intense fans (even at little league games) "KILL 'em, son!" and such.

I know I'm a cynic, but I cannot imagine a day where the "us v them" dynamic will ever truly fade from humanity. So as long as there's a group of people who are doing something, no matter how harmless, to which another group is vehemently opposed, there will be protests and demonstrations and ridiculous fabrications designed to intensify the rhetoric into confrontation. We like confrontation as a species.

My solution has always been to point and laugh at protesters that I disagree with AND those who I agree with. 'Cause a zealot you agree with is still dangerous. The burning desire to increase the "us" at the expense of "them" is an instinct fanned by those who desire control and power. Don't fall for it -- or do -- it's your choice.

Morals are every-changing, and while some things are obviously damaging to us and to others, and are obviously morally wrong (murder, drug use, robbery, genocide, etc.) it is also wrong to infringe on the rights of a private citizen. Issues like abortion straddle the line between these two sides. Every issue is taken either from the "rights of a person" standpoint or a "its just damn wrong to do that because X" standpoint. People will obviously have differences in their oppinions, and they belive they are right and hence the other side must be wrong. Most of the issues that seriously split people along these lines are ones that involve the live of another human or other being, and in the case of abortion, the pro-life side is with the "its just damn wrong to do that because X" standpoint, and they will naturally try to force their oppinion on everyone else, because they see the "lives" of thousands of fetuses at stake.

Morals are every-changing, and while some things are obviously damaging to us and to others, and are obviously morally wrong (murder, drug use, robbery, genocide, etc.) it is also wrong to infringe on the rights of a private citizen. Issues like abortion straddle the line between these two sides. Every issue is taken either from the "rights of a person" standpoint or a "its just damn wrong to do that because X" standpoint. People will obviously have differences in their oppinions, and they belive they are right and hence the other side must be wrong. Most of the issues that seriously split people along these lines are ones that involve the live of another human or other being, and in the case of abortion, the pro-life side is with the "its just damn wrong to do that because X" standpoint, and they will naturally try to force their oppinion on everyone else, because they see the "lives" of thousands of fetuses at stake.

Bingo. Well put, and welcome!

*sighs* but with abortion (not necessarily my intended point of focus but one that works none the less) you can't say the zygot is alive. YOu can't say that something that is just a mass of tissue is really alive. Other wise all the bacteria we kill every day would be considered genocide. The tissue that will form the heart doesn't start to beat until 22 days after the egg's fertilization. So if an abortion is done before that, nothing is killed. But if we do something after that, even if it is still just a mass of cells with a point at which the tissue beats but can not support itself and doesn't even have a physical shape, its considred murder. Now does anyone see anything wrong with this situation besides me?

*sighs* but with abortion (not necessarily my intended point of focus but one that works none the less) you can't say the zygot is alive. YOu can't say that something that is just a mass of tissue is really alive. Other wise all the bacteria we kill every day would be considered genocide. The tissue that will form the heart doesn't start to beat until 22 days after the egg's fertilization. So if an abortion is done before that, nothing is killed. But if we do something after that, even if it is still just a mass of cells with a point at which the tissue beats but can not support itself and doesn't even have a physical shape, its considred murder. Now does anyone see anything wrong with this situation besides me?
of course you can say that, people do it every day. if it couldnt be said (and truly believed) there would be no controversy.

that YOU think that an embryo is insignificant is as irrelevant to them as their opinion that an embryo is the equivalent of a new born baby is to you.