GoddessDustyGold
Posts: 2822
Joined: 4/11/2004
From: Arizona
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MistressNoName
Now, this thread is 8 pages and running, and still no clear viable options that are acceptable to all.
I would just like to remind everyone that the topic of this thread is "Are you selective in your stance on 'Bans' "
It is not about smoking vs non-smoking, nor is it about abortion. I did bring up smoking to show how a ban can come into place so easily, and I got argument after argument about how "this is different". I say this makes them selective on "bans". They insist it does not make them "selective on bans. So I addressed the topic from a different standpoint by bringing up "Abortion" as a legal option and how easily it could also end up being banned.
Frankly, for every argument I can hear regarding smoking in public (or even in private), I can return an argument using the same words and apply it to abortion. I have shown that I can. It is up to you whether you can see that or not.
Some people got off track by picking up the smoking thing and arguing why it was wrong to smoke and forcing non-cosensual non-smokers to participate in their "kink"...(kink???), and then others picked up the abortion thing by becoming upset and saying I was not a reasonable person to even approach something like this.
I really just want people to think and realize that as much as you hate smoking and smokers and the smell of smoke, it is just as easy to gradually restrict and then completely take away something that you may want and consider to be a personal decision.
In the case of abortion, I look at it as the Person A (Mom) infringing or directly impacting Person "B" (the baby). In fact, I am using this as an example, because it was specifically used as an example of why is is okay to ban smoking. Person "A" (Smoker) is directly impacting the right of Person "B" (The non-smoker) to breathe clean air. I simply used it to show that the exact same impact argument could apply to abortion. However, it seems others would look at it as Person "A" being the unwanted child and Person "B' being the victimized Mother. Isn't it funny how people view things that differently?
I do feel that there is little in the way of consequences for our actions these days, and this is one very important personal decision (having sex, that is) that many do not even worry about anymore because they can always terminate the pregnancy. I also am sensitive to certain circumstances that make a termination a necessity.
I will say that I am not Pro Choice. And one of the main reasons I am not is exactly because of what Julia wrote.
No offense specifically intended, Julia, but you are the one who wrote it.
quote:
your analogy does not stand in favor of your position... the right of the embyro does not supercede the right of the woman...
quote:
Who are you to say a woman does not have the right to decide that she does not want this person living in her body. Who are you to say that she must be forced to nourish the person. <snipped>
quote:
If you state that we now must force women to feed and incubate babies, then I suppose we must house everyone who is homeless and feed them too? What you are really saying is a woman does not have the right to decide that she will not serve as an incubator. It may sound harsh to you, but not everyone loves their embryos, nor wants to be inconvenienced by them, <snipped>
quote:
In other words, no one has the right to force someone to have something in their body that they did not choose, whether it be an embryo or nicotine..
To refer to a woman as being forced to use her body as an incubator against her will when that woman, in almost all instances, chose to participate inthe sexual act that could result in this very consequence, and to refer to an embryo and an infringer on the Mother's uterus or an inconvenience really gave Me pause. And I have already stated that, again, in most instances, I feel very strongly that the embryo' rights supercede the rights of the Mother. It is not the right of the Mother to terminate a pregnancy because it is an inconvenience and she has rights to a different life. She partiicpated in creating this life, and now that it is not working out in her scheudle or plans, she should just get rid of it? This is not like buying a dress on impulse and then regretting it and realizign that you stil need to pay the rent, so you return and get your money back.
I would rather think that the women who do choose to terminate a pregnancy have a difficult time choosing to do this and are saddened by the inevitibility that this is the only decision and the right decision they can make. I do feel that the option is abused, just as the non-smokers make the argument that unless the abolish every possible way to smoke, the smokers will abuse their rights to breathe clean air. Which is a laugh in itself, considering what we are breathing every day from all the other crap being spewed into our atmosphere, but that is neither here nor there.
To answer Julia's questions...no, I do not feel that we have to feed every homeless person, although there are many private charities as well as a welfare system in place that can help many people, and much of that is already being taken care of via private charity and our tax dollars. If people do not avail themselves of a "hand-up" rather than expect a "hand-out" there is little I can do. Our system is a mess, too many fall through the cracks and some choose to live on the streets or choose to do nothing and then complain. Does that shock you, Julia? Because it is true.
I try not to be a hard ass when it comes to this, but I have worked hard all My life, and I do not feel it is My responsibility to take on more than I can. So I have always been as prudent as I can be regarding what I have to spend and how it is spent. I also do not think it is right for people to throw away the personal responsibility/obligation/consequence of their actions, just because there is an easy way to resolve it. If there wasn't an easy way to resolve it, maybe more women would think twice before agreeing to some "spontaneous", not safe sex. Because it is the women who bear the brunt of it. If people really had to start takign a driect hit or conseuquence for their actions, then they might begin thinking twice or even just thinking about things befire they leap into action.
It is very hard for Me to be shown in concrete words that My feelings are correct. I would hope that with over 43 million abortions in this country in the last 35 or so years, that the women who do not care about the life growing inside of them are more rare than the ones who are struggling with a very hard decision. But I think it has become all too easy. No more than a few hours in an outpatient clinic to get rid of an inconvenience. Well, I guess life really is cheap.
Do not come back and argue with Me on this, as I will not respond. If you want to debate how I am so wrong, go ahead and do it without Me. I am sure you all can come up with 43 million reasons why I am wrong and a personal decision is none of My business. Well, I say that if I choose to smoke and want to have a few designated areas in public where I can, then it is not your business to say that you are going to make sure I don't even have a restaurant I can choose where I can smoke.
This thread is about a being selective on "bans"...It is not about smoking, or abortion or the homeless or the foster care system. It is here to make us think about how easy it is to agree to taking away the rights of some, without even some sort of reasonable compromise, but assume that your options or pleasures that you feel are harmless could go away just as easily.. THINK! Come up with scenarios of how things could be banned and what to look out for, rather than just going along with something because you think it is a good idea. Don't shove it under the rug by trying to justify that the example I am making about the smoking ban " is different".
< Message edited by GoddessDustyGold -- 4/28/2007 7:04:54 PM >
_____________________________
Dusty
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
B Franklin
Don't blame Me ~ I didn't vote for either of them
The Hidden Kingdom
|
RE: Are you selective in your stance on "Bans"? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread