Personal Responsibility: From Guns to Abortion, where did we go wrong as Society? (regime, solution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I still remember my Dad telling me son "Personal Responsibility is the anchor of good Character. Every decision you make will start there and the results will end up as a bullet point on your Character resume in the eyes of other people.""
Having said that, and now an adult, I tend to question the character of those who are Against Gun Ownership and those For Abortion. In some cases there are Gun supporters that also support Abortion, but the point is the same. Personal Responsibility.
Why do non-Gun Owners want to un-arm those that are Personally Responsible Gun Owners?
and
Why is Abortion prommoted when Abstience/Personal Responsibility(safe sex) is not?
It would appear as though the Gun Grabbers and the Baby Killers are playing for the same Personally Irresponsible team imo.
Why is do you think Personal Responsiblitiy is shunned in favor of Government Intervention??
To be honest with you, I was never taught anything about character from my parents, not verbally anyways. I was taught by some of their actions (good and ill). But maybe I should amend that to say one or two things were stated to me verbally that would fall under the umbrella of "teachings for character development." But I've mostly found those to be wrong as I've aged.
My parents were mainly political. They were/are Democrats and usually that's the only thing of "life" they discussed or preached about, the politics and values at whatever moment among the Democrats.
I wish I had been raised with a lot of teachings and guidance about "good character." I wish very little politics had been spoken.
Today I'm pretty politically agnostic.
I don't think that being against gun ownership necessarily follows one has "bad" or "good" character. I think the issue of its morality is too politicized.
In general I'm in favor of gun ownership. I can see where the vast majority in some nations would be opposed to it. There are both costs and benefits to guns being legally sold and purchased in a nation. For the national a whole but for the individual as well.
I think there are costs and benefits to premarital sex too. The physical pleasure is a benefit. The psychological affects of being wanted, accepted, and so forth... are benefits. But the costs are increased risks to STD's, potentially creating a child, and the immorality involved in premarital sex.
Personal responsibility involves weighing the costs and benefits and limiting and or eliminating your "wrongs." Aborting a human life, especially one that is your child, is a great wrong. It's compounding the wrong of your wrong of having premarital sex. If you're married and abort your child then that is a wrong in response to the results of a right and good in you having or having had marital sex.
I use the word "wrong" to secularize the context, as secularism is a sort of new "religion," so to speak, and demands a certain vocabulary. Misery loves company and the goal of those heading to a certain final destination is to bring as many with them as they can, by inoculating children with a loss of the sense of sin.
If sin exists then it may be ridiculous and possibly hazardous to pretend it does not exist.
If sin does not exist then it may not serve a good purpose to believe it does exist or to maintain it in the vocabulary.
The two positions in blue seem logical to me. And deductive logic in very simple terms is basically what rationally follows from the form of, "If the world is this way, then this must follow or this must be such."
How is abortion not personally responsible? Is it not irresponsible to bring a baby into a struggling life?
I think life for most people is a struggle. There is something anti-animal and anti-theory of evolution in such pro-abortion rhetoric against struggle and intra-species competition.
This is one of the failures of contemporary secular thinking, it lacks an intellectual coherency that the 5 Great Religions have beautifully weaved together within the bodies of their intellectual traditions over the course of a thousand or more years.
Secular, atheist, intellectuals like the philosopher Daniel Denette is trying to repair that severed garment.
While I don't arrive at the same conclusions as Denette (we start from different points anyways, him with the non-existence of a God and me with the existence of not only a God but one that became incarnate and one of Three Persons) he does have a brilliant mind. So, I'm sure would recognize the contradiction in excusing abortion merely because life as struggles. He does seek to weave the theory of evolution into a whole philosophy of life that can replace religion (religious philosophy).
No, having an abortion is taking personal responsibility, period. And it has nothing to do with government either, contrary to the last sentence in your OP.
An assertion is just that and does not prove a point. Just making an assertion is not persuasive either. Neither in English courses or philosophy course.
Arguing abortion should be legal because a woman is poor and would struggle to raise a child can be a persuasive argument irrespective of whether or not one critiques the conclusion right or wrong.
Quote:
Oh, and it's not killing a child, it's a blob, a fetus. Sorry you refuse to believe that.
A human fetus is human life. Like other animals other multicellular complex life forms... humans go through various stages of development from conception to death. That's an objective fact within the sciences.
Some like to philosophically argue over when a "human life" begins but from a pure standpoint of biological science that has a cellular view point (one might call it cellular-centric), life begins at the point at which we lay people call "conception." Intuitively pro-abortionists believe this too and its why they are so pro-abortion. They do not doubt a human zygote or human fetus is a growing, developing human life.
To say it's not human life makes arguments for abortion revolving around giving birth to a human child rather ridiculous. It would be illogical to absurdity.
Gender bias is contrary to everything our organization works for daily in communities across the country. Planned Parenthood opposes racism and sexism in all forms, and we work to advance equity and human rights in the delivery of health care. Planned Parenthood condemns sex selection motivated by gender bias, and urges leaders to challenge the underlying conditions that lead to these beliefs and practices, including addressing the social, legal, economic, and political conditions that promote gender bias and lead some to value one gender over the other.
Basically, Planned Parenthood and feminist believe and teach it is unethical to abort developing human life motivated out of a preference for one sex over another. In other words to select against a certain sex by aborting a developing human life that would be born of that sex you are selecting against.
Feminist want to teach us that that is wrong. Unethical.
If it was never human life then it was never a human female then Planned Parenthood's and the feminist objection to sex-selection abortions is rather absurd and ridiculous. It's poor philosophy because it forms contradictions. And a contradiction in a philosophical proof is marked: false.
A tautology in a proof is marked: true.
Proofs are used in mathematics and logic/philosophy.
Still is not my problem. Those countries want to live in backward times, then that's their perogative. Who are we to dictate what their countries do? We can comment on their barbaric ways, but that is ALL we can do.
Here, in the US, where it matters, the woman is STILL free to chose what she wants to do. And no amount of pressure for the misogynistic beliefs running rampant through the GOP will change that. Every law the does something to hinder the access of freedom to choose, the fight will become bigger.
It's the Law of the Land, so is the Death Penalty. Don't make it right.
Liberalism is all about feeling good no matter how stupid the cause.
The first action taken by Sen. Al Franken upon being "elected" to the Senate was to introduce a bill that would create an organization within government to train and place personal assistant dogs with disabled veterans.
Sounds like a worthy cause, right?
Well, the problem is that a VA program already existed to serve this need and a private charity also trained these same personal assistant dogs for wounded veterans.
So if the existing program was inadequate, wouldn't it be prudent to fix the existing program instead of creating a duplicate program?
A rational person would think so, but liberals are a different breed.
They need to create monuments to their own benevolence no matter how stupid it is or how much it costs other people.
In the case of abortion, a child must be sacrificed so that the liberal can rescue the female from her own irresponsibility.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
