1. #76
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp
    George,

    I do have to agree that your statement of "abortion is wrong" is only your opinion and blatantly incorrect in this country. Because once again it is the law. You may believe it is morally wrong and that is your right, but to blanketly state that abortion is wrong is simply incorrect legally.

    Heck George there are plenty of things I believe are morally wrong in this country from my viewpoint, but it doesn't make it wrong if someone has a legal right to do it. I would think someone of your background would understand the difference.

    FyredUp
    Wow, I thought I would stay out of this thread, but I'm actually chiming in again to agree with George on this one (who'd a thunk it?).

    Goerge can say "abortion is wrong" all he wants, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think he's obligated to put "I believe" in front of every opinion he states - I think we can all be intelligent enough to know that what he's saying is what he believes.

    And I've gotta say I BELIEVE (snicker) that just because someone has the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's not wrong. If there's no law against it, it means the government is keeping it's nose out of the issue, but that doesn't mean the action is not wrong. This has been obvious since I was a little kid. Examples (and you can read a mental "I believe" before these statements if you want):

    It's not illegal to indiscriminately breed animals that aren't needed/wanted... but it's wrong.

    It's not illegal to take your spouse for granted... but it's wrong.

    It's not illegal to publicly embarrass a classmate for fun... but it's wrong.

    It's not illegal to name your child something like "Peanut" or "SpaceMonkey"... but ithat's just REALLY wrong.

    Laws change, and things become legal that were once illegal and vice-versa. Thus "right or wrong" and "legal or illegal" are completely different matters.

    Obviously people disagree about what is right and what is wrong, but don't let that stop you from saying something is wrong if you believe it is. Opinions are like arseholes in the sense that everyone has one, but they are different from arseholes in one important way - you can share yours in public!
    -------;- "Aaaaa!!"
    Remember - always wear your helmet around one-eyed women with pike poles

  2. #77
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    236

    Default

    It's funny that both sides of the abortion issue use the same bible verse to back up their side.

    If you believe abortion is murder then it should never be allowed regardless of the situation.

    I believe there is a line somewhere between conception and birth where abortion is a viable alternative.

    If I knew where that line was, I'd be a smart SOB.

  3. #78
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baileydonk
    Wow, I thought I would stay out of this thread, but I'm actually chiming in again to agree with George on this one (who'd a thunk it?).

    Goerge can say "abortion is wrong" all he wants, there's nothing wrong with that. I don't think he's obligated to put "I believe" in front of every opinion he states - I think we can all be intelligent enough to know that what he's saying is what he believes. It depends, one way it is an opinion and the other it is am outright declaration as if everyone should just go along with that.

    And I've gotta say I BELIEVE (snicker) that just because someone has the legal right to do something doesn't mean it's not wrong. If there's no law against it, it means the government is keeping it's nose out of the issue, but that doesn't mean the action is not wrong. This has been obvious since I was a little kid. Examples (and you can read a mental "I believe" before these statements if you want):

    It's not illegal to indiscriminately breed animals that aren't needed/wanted... but it's wrong. Silly analogy and completely irrelevant.

    It's not illegal to take your spouse for granted... but it's wrong. Again silly and irrelevant.

    It's not illegal to publicly embarrass a classmate for fun... but it's wrong. Cruel circumstance, but still silly and irrelevant.

    It's not illegal to name your child something like "Peanut" or "SpaceMonkey"... but ithat's just REALLY wrong. Embarassing and potentially eemotionally scarring, bit still silly and irrelevant.

    Laws change, and things become legal that were once illegal and vice-versa. Thus "right or wrong" and "legal or illegal" are completely different matters. Not in the eys of the law, and that is the point.

    Obviously people disagree about what is right and what is wrong, but don't let that stop you from saying something is wrong if you believe it is. Opinions are like arseholes in the sense that everyone has one, but they are different from arseholes in one important way - you can share yours in public! Of course you can believe something is wrong if you want to. Or that something is right if you want to. BUT, if it is legal under the law and all of your efforts to change that law have failed then it is okay to do that thing. Wheter others like it or not.
    This debate will never die because no matter what the law says there are zealots on both sides.

    FyredUp

  4. #79
    Forum Member
    FDNY101TRUCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9-0-8
    Posts
    789

    Default

    It's not illegal to publicly embarrass a classmate for fun... but it's wrong

    Now that depends if you do it everyday and cross the lines into harassment....
    NEVER FORGET!
    9/11/01

  5. #80
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    729

    Default

    When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

    This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofire2
    When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

    This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.
    Why end it? I have actually been somewhat impressed that this issue has been discussed in such a forthright manner with little to no insults and fights. This thread is posted under the NEWS section, which means it doesn't have to have anything to do with fire fighting.

    If you have no opinion about this subject, it doesn;t mean that the thread shuold be shut down. Ia ma glad that the WT lets these threads run their course-thereby not stifling fiscourse among thinking adults-until it violates the TOS. so far, it hasn't. If you don't like this thread, you certainly have the option of not reading it.

  7. #82
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    This is an interesting article from the AP:

    Brain-dead woman gives birth, then dies Mon Jun 12, 5:17 AM ET



    A brain-dead woman kept alive artificially for more than two months gave birth to a premature baby girl, doctors at Milan's Niguard hospital said. A few hours after the Saturday birth, the machinery artificially keeping the 38-year-old woman alive was shut off.

    The baby girl, born two months early, was breathing on her own Sunday, doctors said.

    The baby, named Cristina after her mother, was born by emergency Caesarian section and weighed just over 1.5 pounds, the doctors told reporters. The woman's last name was not released to protect the family's privacy.

    Doctors decided to deliver the baby after the woman's blood pressure plunged and the fetus experienced heart rhythm problems, the hospital said.

    The woman was hospitalized in March after suffering the rupture of a cerebral aneurysm, and she was soon declared brain dead, the hospital said. She spent 78 days in a brain-dead state, it said.

    The mother's kidneys and corneas were donated for transplant, the hospital said. Her liver was donated to another patient at Niguarda hospital, news reports said.

  8. #83
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofire2
    When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

    This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.
    Could you please ask them to burn all the books you don't agree with as well? Whats wrong with discussing an issue? You will never get people to agree on something simple like how to put out a fire (silly ppv fans, unneeded foam, exterior attacks, etc.) so should they shut those threads down to? There seem to be a lot of calls recently for the web team to shut down threads lately. Butch up and learn how to take a little disagreement, would ya?
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    This is an interesting article from the AP:
    I'll agree. And here are my thoughts, if it is Ok to decide to either keep this woman alive via machine or let her die, isn't that a person (or persons) taking the "role" of God? Is there a difference in terminating a person in this condition vs an unborn child that MIGHT be in that condition? Is it right to keep someone on those machines (against family wishes) because it is wrong to terminate them? Is there and where is the line drawn? WHO determines the outcome of the pregnany, abortion, life sustaining equipment or not?


    And I'll agree, I think this has been a good discussion.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  10. #85
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    Why end it? I have actually been somewhat impressed that this issue has been discussed in such a forthright manner with little to no insults and fights. This thread is posted under the NEWS section, which means it doesn't have to have anything to do with fire fighting.

    If you have no opinion about this subject, it doesn;t mean that the thread shuold be shut down. Ia ma glad that the WT lets these threads run their course-thereby not stifling fiscourse among thinking adults-until it violates the TOS. so far, it hasn't. If you don't like this thread, you certainly have the option of not reading it.
    My objection to this thread stems from the fact that no matter which side you sit on or perhaps have had to make a decission on, somebody is being labelled marally wrong a a result of that decission. If our religious, political, and medical leaders cannot come up with concensus as to when life begins, then how can we and until there can be a clear definition of when life begins then this matter is mute.

    Discussion only serves to open wounds and this is a discussion that as a Captain I would not allow in my hall and therefore should not be continued here. It is an argument that cannot be won.

  11. #86
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofire2
    My objection to this thread stems from the fact that no matter which side you sit on or perhaps have had to make a decission on, somebody is being labelled marally wrong a a result of that decission. If our religious, political, and medical leaders cannot come up with concensus as to when life begins, then how can we and until there can be a clear definition of when life begins then this matter is mute.

    Discussion only serves to open wounds and this is a discussion that as a Captain I would not allow in my hall and therefore should not be continued here. It is an argument that cannot be won.
    WHAT???????? As a Captain you feel that you have the right to regulate what the FF under your supervision talk about? You have got to be kidding! Our working relationship would last right up until you tried to tell me what I could talk about. Especially if that subject was not about hate, bias, discrimination or otherwise. Then I would file a grievance. Then I would win. Then you would do it again and I would win again. Finally, you wouldn''t be a Captain anymore.

    This topic is perfectly legitimate. Do you realize that your posts are actually going to cause as much, if not more controversy than the actual topic?

  12. #87
    Forum Member
    fflynn17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Finally Vermont!
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofire2
    When this thread first started, I sent a message to the Web-Team to stop it before it starts, the Web-Team ignored my message despite the fact that I asked for a reply (not sure what's up with that). My reasoning is that no matter how long this neverendum goes on you cannot change peoples moral opinion and this particular argument almost always digenerates to name calling and hurt.

    This is a discussion that has nothing in common with firefighting and serves no useful purpose in the forum. Web-Team again(in public this time, so you won't ignore your duty) please end this discussion.
    Ending the discussion serves no purpose. This is a contentious issue, and maybe one of us can make someone reading the discussion think about the issue in a way they hadn't before.

    All the parties are discussing the issue in an adult manner, it does not violate the TOS as long as there have been no personal attacks.

    (Look George, we agree on something!! )
    9/11/01 Never forget Never forgive

    Dusty, working on Crusty IACOJ

  13. #88
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42
    I'll agree. And here are my thoughts, if it is Ok to decide to either keep this woman alive via machine or let her die, isn't that a person (or persons) taking the "role" of God? Is there a difference in terminating a person in this condition vs an unborn child that MIGHT be in that condition? Is it right to keep someone on those machines (against family wishes) because it is wrong to terminate them? Is there and where is the line drawn? WHO determines the outcome of the pregnany, abortion, life sustaining equipment or not?


    And I'll agree, I think this has been a good discussion.
    One of the reasons that I did not add any comments to this article is because of what is missing. There is no mention of whose decision it was to keep her alive or if there were any legal documents, such as a living will, that caused them to do this. I think it is also unclear as to whether she was being kept alive solely for the purpose of the pregnancy. You can draw inferences, but there is no solid info. In addition, there was little info about her medical prognosis.

    If it was her husband's call to keep her alive and if he knew it was his wife's wish to be kept alive, is he wrong? Mr. Schiavo wasn't wrong when he did the same thing with the opposite result.

    That aside, the main point of my post was the miracle of how this unviable mass of tissue managed to survive in the womb of a brain dead mother and grow to be a near full term baby. Ironic isn't it?

  14. #89
    Forum Member
    fflynn17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Finally Vermont!
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    This is an interesting article from the AP:
    I have no problem with this, as long as it was her family's wishes. If the family was FORCED to do this, it would be wrong.
    9/11/01 Never forget Never forgive

    Dusty, working on Crusty IACOJ

  15. #90
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    WHAT???????? As a Captain you feel that you have the right to regulate what the FF under your supervision talk about? You have got to be kidding! Our working relationship would last right up until you tried to tell me what I could talk about. Especially if that subject was not about hate, bias, discrimination or otherwise. Then I would file a grievance. Then I would win. Then you would do it again and I would win again. Finally, you wouldn''t be a Captain anymore.

    This topic is perfectly legitimate. Do you realize that your posts are actually going to cause as much, if not more controversy than the actual topic?
    You may win in your jurisdiction but not mine. My departments Policy and Procedure Manual States clearly (as I believe most departments do) that you will not engage in political or religious arguments while on duty. As Station Captain it is my duty to uphold the Departments policies and procedures. Make no misunderstanding, when it comes to abortion, the argument always comes down to religion and politics.

    Don't take that to mean that people can't discuss an issue, the key word is arguments. The problem is that it is my experience that the subject of abortion rarely if ever can be discussed rationally, without argument, without prejudice and without somebody getting hurt, even if it is in the crossfire.

  16. #91
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Aside from you trying to play censor, there really is no argument here. Don't read this thread. Go away. Let us get back to an actual intelligence discourse for a change.

  17. #92
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    Aside from you trying to play censor, there really is no argument here. Don't read this thread. Go away. Let us get back to an actual intelligence discourse for a change.
    GO AWAY!, Fat chance.

    You, in your argument has chosen the following terms for those opposing your view, within this thread and most within your posts.

    A Culture of death

    Morally wirong

    Terrorism

    Murder

    Killing

    The other side has used.

    A womans absolute right to chose

    Quality of life

    Legal right

    So much for intelligent discourse. This is on both sides nothing but religious and political blustering meant to discredit and suggest that the other side is morally wrong. If you were only arguing on the legal grounds, I would accept that this is "intelligent discourse" When you resort to name calling it is argument.

    You are right about one thing, it is my right to turn off discussion which I feel is not appropriate and that ultimately I can only censor myself.

    Go away I will, but on my terms, not yours.

  18. #93
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    >>Go away I will, but on my terms, not yours.<<

    Whatever.

    The important thing is that you are going away.

  19. #94
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    Ok, to go further off topic you actually have an policy/procedure that tells you what you can/can't argue about? Now THAT sounds like an administrator with way too much time on their hands.


    George, I will also go as far as to say, what is the definition or beginning of life? Meaning, some people have said it's when the mass of cells are able to fend for themselves and survive, some are saying the instant the cells first join, and some are saying a point in between that. Making that decision, in someone's own mind, would definitely play into where they stand with abortion decisions. I know, for me and my wife, the first sonogram picture we saw of our first child was way before there was any "human" form to it. In my head and heart, that was my child, not an unviable mass of tissue. I cannot imagine terminating that child (although at 10, she gets me pretty damn mad!)
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  20. #95
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Marietta, OH
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Why is it even an argument that the woman has a right to chose? She made the choice to have sex (in most cases)! I am not a doctor but last I heard the purpose of sex is reproduction. So by having sex you are assuming any responsibility that comes from it. So the choice we all have is to have sex or not to. If you can't handle the responsibility then don't do it.

    If an embryo is just a cluster of cells that represents nothing, then what are you and I? All I am is a bunch of cells, nothing more nothing less. So who is to say what is life. We should always be on the side saving life not taking life because we won't know the consequences until we are dead.

  21. #96
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    252

    Default Must we stick to "intelligent discourse"?

    If these forums stuck to "intelligent discourse", how many threads would there actually be?

    It seems to me that if you consider abortion murder, you have to fight against it and politeness be damned. If you considered it murder and DIDN'T fight against it, then I'd have little respect for you.
    (and by "you", I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular - it's the generic "you")

    I think the question of the murder of the pregnant woman is an interesting one. I think it's interesting because it seems to be generally believed that where you stand on abortion rights is directly linked to where you stand on the murder-of-the-pregnant-woman issue... if you are pro-choice you are supposed to think that counts as only one murder, if you are pro-life you are supposed to think it is two murders. Here I sit in the middle - pro-choice but feeling that someone who murders a pregnant woman should be charged with two killings. I feel this way because the woman's partner has indeed lost two loved ones, his wife/girlfriend and his expected child... the woman's parents have lost two loved ones, their daughter and their expected grandchild. It is a greater loss to the survivors in that sense, and thus I feel it is a worse crime. I know a lot of pro-choice people who would say that my feelings about this are somehow providing support to those who would take away a woman's right to choose... but I feel how I feel, and I can't pretend I don't just to give more clout to my side of a political issue. I know that my feelings are somewhat contradictory - that I consider a fetus "potential life" in the same sense as a sperm or an egg is potential life, that I don't consider it murder for the parent/s to end that potential life, but that I do consider it murder for someone else to end that potential life. Maybe how I feel doesn't make sense, but it's still how I feel. So sue me.
    -------;- "Aaaaa!!"
    Remember - always wear your helmet around one-eyed women with pike poles

  22. #97
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42
    Ok, to go further off topic you actually have an policy/procedure that tells you what you can/can't argue about? Now THAT sounds like an administrator with way too much time on their hands.

    OK, think about the very real possibility that one of the persons in the Station has a daughter (or even in todays world a firefighter) who made a choice to have an abortion. Using the terminology expressed in this thread, some of you have called her a "murderer" (legalities not withstanding). Are you going to tell me that there is not the very real possibility of a volatile situation. Are you also going to tell me that it is not the responsibility of the administrator to anticipate and prevent such volatile situations.


    George, I will also go as far as to say, what is the definition or beginning of life? Meaning, some people have said it's when the mass of cells are able to fend for themselves and survive, some are saying the instant the cells first join, and some are saying a point in between that. Making that decision, in someone's own mind, would definitely play into where they stand with abortion decisions. I know, for me and my wife, the first sonogram picture we saw of our first child was way before there was any "human" form to it. In my head and heart, that was my child, not an unviable mass of tissue. I cannot imagine terminating that child (although at 10, she gets me pretty damn mad!)
    Again if you are discussing when life begins, you have my blessing (not that you need it) and if you can come to a determination then I truly congratulate you. Because this is a determination that centuries of theologists, governments, medical practitioners and lawyers have not been able or willing to reach concensus and until there is concensus as to when life begins, the whole arguement is mute and comes down to little more that name calling.

  23. #98
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ameryfd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    598

    Default

    Fyred--Please don't take this personal. I don't wanna argue with you at all...just adding to the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp
    But the simple fact is abortion has been the law of the land for over 30 years. There have been many attempts to change the law and they have all failed at a federal level. Fyredup
    The same was said of slavery, except it was the law of the land for "four score and 8 years". It too was upheld by the courts consistently. It too was argued on the basis of religion, it too was justified under the guise of "you can't tell me what I can or cannot do with my property". It too was justified under states rights....it too, finally, was rightfully outlawed partially on the argument that, yes, the govt. can legislate morality and that the rights of one human being cannot supercede the rights of another.

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp
    I honestly believe that if enough people really cared about this issue our politicians would be bombarded with calls, letters, and e-mails demanding a change. I think most people believe this is a personal private matter and is no one else's business.
    Fyredup
    Check with your Senator and ask them what they get more public comments about than anything else...I'm guessing this issue ranks in the top 5.

  24. #99
    Forum Member
    FDNY101TRUCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9-0-8
    Posts
    789

    Default

    I am not a doctor but last I heard the purpose of sex is reproduction
    So your saying you should only have sex if you want to reproduce?
    NEVER FORGET!
    9/11/01

  25. #100
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by manofire2
    Again if you are discussing when life begins, you have my blessing (not that you need it) and if you can come to a determination then I truly congratulate you. Because this is a determination that centuries of theologists, governments, medical practitioners and lawyers have not been able or willing to reach concensus and until there is concensus as to when life begins, the whole arguement is mute and comes down to little more that name calling.
    For someone who doesn't think this is an appropriate discussion, you've got a lot to say.

    BTW, the term is "moot".

    adj.
    Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

    Law. Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
    Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hey folks...
    By rbango in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-25-2003, 09:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register