Thread: Societal Norms Discussion

1. Genetic predisposition toward homosexuality is also a myth, otherwise homosexuality would have disappeared a long time ago. It exists in many species and all attempts to change gay behaviour in humans have failed.

2. re. pedophilia: As I stated, there is a big difference between being gay and being a predator. We legislate against the latter because it's harmful to our society. Psychotic behaviour from the victim is an all too common result of such predatory events. Pedophilia, incidentally is also a predisposition which has never been successfully changed. Releasing them after time served is a bit of a paradox. If they can contribute to society without preying on children (essentially live celibate lives) they could be useful, but there is a lot of danger there. Incarceration is preferred to state sanctioned murder of these people in my opinion for two reasons, 1) We stoop too low when we act in a manner which we wouldn't tolerate from the individual, and 2) Science still has a lot to learn about these problems and these are the only case subjects we've got. Gas them all and we'll learn nothing.

3. Plurality in marriage IS permitted in some societies, but it is not something which we westerners tend to embrace. I believe the reason for this is that it leads to abusive situations where women are kept and the husband dominates them. Underage marriages are more common and it is generally a bad thing for women in our society. Odd that it doesn't go the other way, but that's how we see it play out, it's not good for women and we therefore legislate against it.

4. S&M IS a normal lustful activity, it's just not yours.

5. Abortion should (I feel) be legal because it's only going to happen anyhow. Women will be in charge of their own bodies and sometimes abortion is their best option. Back alley abortions devastated many lives. Let me state that I'm glad we have sex education and birth control to help prevent abortion. I think it is a distasteful and unfortunately necessary procedure. Quite frankly, if I were a woman with an unwanted or life threatening pregnancy, I don't know how I could make the decision.

Let's do this: Let's stop saying, "I believe something because it seems right to me and I've made up my own reasons for it which satisfy me" and let's start presenting facts and asking ourselves what logical determinations can be made from those facts. A fact is a fiction until it is given reasonable proof.

X

Originally Posted by mhailey

Also, one last question, what e rights of the woman are so fundamental and important that are deserving of protecting to the point that a life has to be extinguished. is it to keep her figure? to not have to go through the hassle of the adoption? What are these "rights"?

Circumstances must dictate. Facing overpopulation and starvation, abortion could be easily considered in the case of most pregnancies. Abort now or famish a nation. Starvation aside, it could be argued that one may abort whenever it is safe during the pregnancy to do so. Or when the brain stem forms, or any other set of determiners. I'm up for suggestions.

Originally Posted by mhailey

If it is the right to do what she wants with her body, then why don't we have the constitutional right to ingest crack, cocaine, crystal meth?

C'mon, man! Did you ask yourself it it was harmful to your health? This one's easy.

X

Originally Posted by Jonedangerousli

Again, I realize you can make the same argument for the fetus. From a purely theoretical standpoint until the point that a baby is severed from the woman's body it still remains a part of her life, but I'm not arguing that she be able to abort a fetus at 8.9 months. I realize it is a compromise, but we compromise our rights constantly.

Kids are also relatively helpless and completely dependant on there parents for a number of years. The logic I am hearing dictates that we should be allowed to have retroactive abortions, and after that there are a number of places this argument can go! Shall we allow murder because someone is a burden to us? Do you see the mistake in going in this direction?

Originally Posted by JMS

Kids are also relatively helpless and completely dependant on there parents for a number of years. The logic I am hearing dictates that we should be allowed to have retroactive abortions, and after that there are a number of places this argument can go! Shall we allow murder because someone is a burden to us? Do you see the mistake in going in this direction?

No. I see a mistake in logic. The child may be successfully raised by any member of the community. the fetus is dependent upon its mother alone.

X

Originally Posted by xman

C'mon, man! Did you ask yourself it it was harmful to your health? This one's easy.

X

That one goes without question. It wasn't necessary for him to bring it up!

Originally Posted by xman

No. I see a mistake in logic. The child may be successfully raised by any member of the community. the fetus is dependent upon its mother alone.

X

The point is we should not do things for expediency or because it is convenient! We all have our responsibilities to live up to! we must do based on what we believe to be good and right, not based on what is easiest and most convenient.

Originally Posted by JMS

The point is we should not do things for expediency or because it is convenient! We all have our responsibilities to live up to! we must do based on what we believe to be good and right, not based on what is easiest and most convenient.

Agreed. This is for the woman alone to decide. It is our duty to instruct and inform her properly to avoid such unpleasantness.

X

Funny thing, every time I look at the tital of this thread, I read it"societal disnorms". It takes my brain a second to realize it says "societal norms".

Originally Posted by JMS

The point is we should not do things for expediency or because it is convenient! We all have our responsibilities to live up to! we must do based on what we believe to be good and right, not based on what is easiest and most convenient.

The challenge there is to define what is "good" and "right".

Originally Posted by JMS

Kids are also relatively helpless and completely dependant on there parents for a number of years. The logic I am hearing dictates that we should be allowed to have retroactive abortions, and after that there are a number of places this argument can go! Shall we allow murder because someone is a burden to us? Do you see the mistake in going in this direction?

As I've said at least twice in this discussion, there is a very distinct conflict between the rights of the woman and the fetus, which in my view is not a separate person until it is able to sustain life outside the woman's body. Once the child is born it becomes an individual, with the same rights as any other person. Your interpretation of a slippery slope based on this determination is specious.