good grief that's so wrong. I'd sue the shit out of that hospital if I ended up pregnant by a rape. I guess victims rights isn't important to catholic hospitals.
Bloody fecking hell! That's obscene! Some of the anti-abortionist stuff going down in America is frankly sick. There was an article, not so long ago, where chemists were refusing to give out pills because of their religious rights. Stuff religious rights! They dont' have the right to dictate such things! It's sickening. It truly is!
EXACTLY! I mean, if we're going to hold up this arguement, then surely it's also equally valid for a soldier in the army to turn round and say. 'Sorry guv, I'm not shooting anyone today. I'm a christian and I believe in the sanctity of life. No more war for me! But I'll sit round and look pretty..." I mean, honestly, if you do certain proffessions you sign up and agree to do certain things, regardless of your own feelings. Whether you're a doctor, a pharmacist or a Soldier. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
Owens, apparently, wants to run for President, so that's his own special way of sucking up to the lunatics. Owens is one of the most hateful politicians out there - a sanctimonious slimebag.
Yesterday our uni newspaper's editorial section (which I often read for the stupidity...this didn't fail me) responded to that argument by comparing pharmacists who refuse to "kill babies" to soldiers who refuse to torture enemy prisoners (i.e. Abu Ghraib). I read it and my head exploded before I could come up with a counter-argument that wasn't just "RAAAAAAAAAAGE!"
The main differences being that a) one is significantly less likely to be asked to torture enemy prisoners in the army than one is asked to perscribe pills in a pharmacy. Funny that. b) I believe that anyone, of almost any faith, would agree that torture is, by neccesety, wrong. I do not belive that anyone, of any faith, would argue that abortion is wrong. I'm not. c) I'm not entirely sure that it actually says in the Bible, 'thou shalt not torture.' I'm pretty sure it says thou shalt not kill, (hence kinda bringing back the fact that this person is a soldier ANYWAY!) but torture... not a prob! You can torture your little heart out! God ain't got no problemo with that! d) At this moment there is nothing but two small collections of DNA, the sentience of which is in doubt. The sentince of a soldier, enemy or otherwise, is not in doubt. (Or presumably it isn't.) Thus tortuing him is probably more moraly dodgy than stopping to collections of DNA meeting up. e) Who is being harmed by refusing the order to torture a soldier? And arn't there better ways of going about this? Mmm? Also, you have no time limit on this. You have your little enemy soldier in your custady for a long time. Yeah, in certain circumstances there might be exceptions. But let's face it, this is pretty rare! Now; with aborion you have a set time period, if you say no then you are force-bringing a child into the world or forcing the mother to resort to more drastic measures. Such as back street abortion, and so forth. And if the child is born to an unready family still more problems can start. Divorce rates (a child is stressful on a partnership), poverty (single mothers are more succeptable) prostitution, (stems from poverty on the part of the single mothers,) teenage delinquency (mothers who, whilst working, cannot attend to their children) and general crime. Now, whilst none of these problems stem from SIMPLY unwanted pregnancy, it can result in these problems. And has a large effect socially in general. Does the torture of enemy soldiers? Whilst undoubtebly sickening, I think not.
f) Finally, unwanted pregnancy is a fairly large, social problem. The torture of enemy soldiers is not. Or at least not to my knowledge. So you see, this is a REALLY SHIT comparison. And that is my reasoned argument.. ... On the other hand, I think I'll join you in shouting RAAAAAAAGGGEEEEE! GRRRRR!
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
*so pissed*
no subject
no subject
That you privately force upon others, apparently.
no subject
no subject
no subject
I mean, honestly, if you do certain proffessions you sign up and agree to do certain things, regardless of your own feelings. Whether you're a doctor, a pharmacist or a Soldier. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!
no subject
no subject
no subject
For those who are interested in writing here is his mailing address:
Bill Owens, Governor
136 State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203-1792
and here is his email address:
governorowens@state.co.us
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
a) one is significantly less likely to be asked to torture enemy prisoners in the army than one is asked to perscribe pills in a pharmacy. Funny that.
b) I believe that anyone, of almost any faith, would agree that torture is, by neccesety, wrong. I do not belive that anyone, of any faith, would argue that abortion is wrong. I'm not.
c) I'm not entirely sure that it actually says in the Bible, 'thou shalt not torture.' I'm pretty sure it says thou shalt not kill, (hence kinda bringing back the fact that this person is a soldier ANYWAY!) but torture... not a prob! You can torture your little heart out! God ain't got no problemo with that!
d) At this moment there is nothing but two small collections of DNA, the sentience of which is in doubt. The sentince of a soldier, enemy or otherwise, is not in doubt. (Or presumably it isn't.) Thus tortuing him is probably more moraly dodgy than stopping to collections of DNA meeting up.
e) Who is being harmed by refusing the order to torture a soldier? And arn't there better ways of going about this? Mmm? Also, you have no time limit on this. You have your little enemy soldier in your custady for a long time. Yeah, in certain circumstances there might be exceptions. But let's face it, this is pretty rare! Now; with aborion you have a set time period, if you say no then you are force-bringing a child into the world or forcing the mother to resort to more drastic measures. Such as back street abortion, and so forth. And if the child is born to an unready family still more problems can start. Divorce rates (a child is stressful on a partnership), poverty (single mothers are more succeptable) prostitution, (stems from poverty on the part of the single mothers,) teenage delinquency (mothers who, whilst working, cannot attend to their children) and general crime. Now, whilst none of these problems stem from SIMPLY unwanted pregnancy, it can result in these problems. And has a large effect socially in general. Does the torture of enemy soldiers? Whilst undoubtebly sickening, I think not.
f) Finally, unwanted pregnancy is a fairly large, social problem. The torture of enemy soldiers is not. Or at least not to my knowledge.
So you see, this is a REALLY SHIT comparison.
And that is my reasoned argument..
...
On the other hand, I think I'll join you in shouting RAAAAAAAGGGEEEEE!
GRRRRR!
no subject
no subject