View Poll Results: Do you believe that Government or Religion should be allowed to interfere with peoples choices and f

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • I believe they both should be able interfere

    1 1.92%
  • I believe Religion should be able to interfere

    3 5.77%
  • I believe the Govt. should be able to interfere

    8 15.38%
  • I believe neither of them have a right to interfere

    37 71.15%
  • I am undecided

    3 5.77%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: Do you believe that Government or Religion should be allowed to interfere with people

  1. #1

    Default Do you believe that Government or Religion should be allowed to interfere with people

    Because of the events of Terri Schiavo and the ever ongoing debate over Abortion (pro life and pro choice) I decided to start this poll. As you know the govt has interfered in the Terri Schiavo crisis. The US congress led by Pres. Bush have made a law that is putting the whole case into judical review. Terris fate will be decided by the courts and not by her husband and legal guardian. The Govt seems to now have directed its power to interpret "life and value."

    This impressive display of power got me thinking, should the Govt or any outside influence (Religion) be allowed to interpret life as a value or a persons desicion to an abortion. In the future the govt may very well finally take a stand agianst or for abortion. Iam positive Religion also puts a lot of pressure against a person's beliefs on life and abortion. These influnces may very well effect a person's will and possibly freedom.

    I strongly believe the Govt. has no right to interfere with abortion or with the Terri Schiavo crisis. The United States was found on one common principle, the belief that human beings hav a value not determined by their govts, and I believe it should stay that way. As for Religion I also believe that they should not be able to interfere. If everyone lived by Religion we would probably have another Crusade and another "Holy War". I believe neither of tem should have a right to interpret the value of an individual.

    As far as abortion is concerned, Iam strongly against taking innocent life. But my question is, when does life begin?? Because this is undetermined and debateable, Iam undecided about abortion.

    Well what do you all think about "life as a value". Is the value of our lives determined from what we as indiviuals make of it. Or is it determined by a greater power such as the Government. Or lastly is it determined by a divine being, by God.


    King James !!

  2. #2
    ximan's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A
    Posts
    2,421

    Default

    I believe that neither government or religion should interfere with a person's decision on the matter, but I would expect the person to make the right decision, and to not choose abortion. I am strongly against taking lives, and believe that preventing a life is just as bad as ending one. No one person is able to make the decision of life and death. The only case in which I agree with killing is when the accused has the potential of killing more humans. Hopefully, in the future, abortion will no longer be legal, and people will be above such atrocities as that.
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

    http://www.apollocinema.net.tc/

    ximan = pronounced "zee-man"

  3. #3

    Default

    sort of the same lines as ximan, only, a little more pro religion and Govt.

  4. #4
    Achilles of Greece's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New Orleans, U.S.
    Posts
    189

    Default

    I say NEITHER

  5. #5

    Default

    i agree


    King James !!

  6. #6
    Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Berkeley, CA
    Posts
    1,089

    Default

    Originally posted by ximan@Mar 22 2005, 01:55 PM
    I am strongly against taking lives, and believe that preventing a life is just as bad as ending one. No one person is able to make the decision of life and death.
    So I take it that youre also against condoms and all other forms of birth control, right?

  7. #7
    ximan's Avatar Domesticus
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A
    Posts
    2,421

    Default

    Originally posted by Scrappy Jenks@Mar 23 2005, 04:10 PM
    So I take it that youre also against condoms and all other forms of birth control, right?
    When I was Catholic, yes. Now, I am not against them. Dead sperm is different than a dead baby. It is before it has even reached fertilization, so I really don't care about condoms. As for birth control, I'm not really against it as long as it is done the day after, or at least before the human begins to form. I wouldn't use it anyway, though, because I have heard it has some bad side effects.
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

    http://www.apollocinema.net.tc/

    ximan = pronounced "zee-man"

  8. #8

    Default

    Originally posted by ximan@Mar 23 2005, 11:21 PM
    When I was Catholic, yes. Now, I am not against them. Dead sperm is different than a dead baby. It is before it has even reached fertilization, so I really don't care about condoms. As for birth control, I'm not really against it as long as it is done the day after, or at least before the human begins to form. I wouldn't use it anyway, though, because I have heard it has some bad side effects.
    yeah, right.


    Government nor religion don't have a single word on ym decisions, If I want to die, then I will die, and they can go search for tax moneys some place else.

  9. #9

    Default

    Well, as I am more inclined into Plato's beliefs, I would say that the government should have total control over the lives of those who are being governed. If the government says that something its wrong, then it is wrong etc etc.
    Under the wing of Nihil - Under my claws; Farnan, Ummon, & Ecclesiastes.

    Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia.
    Kurt Vonnegut

  10. #10

    Default Wrong in so many areas..

    http://www.channel3000.com/news/4577721/detail.html
    LUFKIN, Texas -- A 19-year-old East Texas man faces a life prison sentence for causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins, even though she wanted to end the pregnancy.

    Gerardo Flores was accused of causing the miscarriage by stepping on his girlfriend's stomach. He was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law.

    Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy. But the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion.

    The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins.

    The jury reached a verdict after deliberating four hours. Because prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case, Flores received the automatic life sentence.

    --
    I have my opinions but want to see the reaction/comments from others first.

  11. #11

    Default

    He murdered the twins period. It's the same as my wife telling me to kill our 10 month old daughter. I think his girlfriend should get life also if she hasn't already.

  12. #12

    Default

    This is prepostrous! That boy should never, EVER have gotten any punishment what so ever! Abortion is NOT murder, any more than removing an organ or a tumor is.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Temple
    This is prepostrous! That boy should never, EVER have gotten any punishment what so ever! Abortion is NOT murder, any more than removing an organ or a tumor is.

    How can you call that abortion? Stomping on helpless unborn fetuses? Oh by the way abortion IS murder.

  14. #14

    Default

    umm... not really. it is still a fetus and it is dependant on its mother thus it would be like taking out an organ. If she wanted to abort it she should have just gone to a clinic.

  15. #15

    Default

    Hmm well I think you both missed the bigger issue here. The fact that an act can be considered a crime if done by a male but isnt a crime if done by a female. The girl admits she asked him and that she assisted by punching herself in the stomach while he jumped on her but yet she is protected by state and federal law since a woman cant be charged for the death of a fetuses regardless how. The fact that it involves termination of a fetuses or abortion is meaningless imo, the fact that one sex can be charged with a crime and one cant is FAR more important. Also it is impossible to prove that his jumping caused the death and not her smashing herself but yet he is now in jail. Hopefully this law will be tested by the supreme court and tossed out because it is insanely stupid. A crime for one person, race, sex is a crime for all you cant selectively apply it.

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danzig
    Hmm well I think you both missed the bigger issue here. The fact that an act can be considered a crime if done by a male but isnt a crime if done by a female. The girl admits she asked him and that she assisted by punching herself in the stomach while he jumped on her but yet she is protected by state and federal law since a woman cant be charged for the death of a fetuses regardless how. The fact that it involves termination of a fetuses or abortion is meaningless imo, the fact that one sex can be charged with a crime and one cant is FAR more important. Also it is impossible to prove that his jumping caused the death and not her smashing herself but yet he is now in jail. Hopefully this law will be tested by the supreme court and tossed out because it is insanely stupid. A crime for one person, race, sex is a crime for all you cant selectively apply it.

    Well I think it's her body so she's not as guilty as this idiot stomping on her. This guy should do what rational people do and take her to a clinic to do it properly. She has hormonal imbalances so she could be emotionally or mentally unstable at certain times (trust me I've been through it). By doing what he did he displayed certain violent tendencies that could be interpreted as having a predisposition to violence therefore making him a menace to society. Normal people do not stomp on others as a form of birth control or abortion.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DEMETRIOUS II
    Well I think it's her body so she's not as guilty as this idiot stomping on her. This guy should do what rational people do and take her to a clinic to do it properly. She has hormonal imbalances so she could be emotionally or mentally unstable at certain times (trust me I've been through it). By doing what he did he displayed certain violent tendencies that could be interpreted as having a predisposition to violence therefore making him a menace to society. Normal people do not stomp on others as a form of birth control or abortion.
    Sorry but that is a bit of cop out, Im sure from an emotional level both were rather stressed as this was obvious an act of panic and failure of either to think rational. Normal people dont stomp on others as birth control true but normal people also dont ask their boyfriends to do it while you are punching yourself in the stomach as well. Why is he guilty of a crime but not her? If she wanted to terminate the pregancy there are certainly options available that dont involve someone jumping on you while you punch yourself in the stomach. The law that a woman cannot be charged NO MATTER WHAT is the problem here. There is no justification for two people engaging in same act but one being guilty of murder but one not. We need to come (as a country) to some sort of agreement and to hell with Prochoice and Prolife extremist who end up getting half *** poorly thought out laws like this passed. We need rational, balanced laws when it comes to just wtf a feutes is and what if any rights is it entitled to *and* take into account the father. I still have major problems with laws where the entire decision process is in the hands of the woman, a woman becomes pregnant (as if she magically does it all by herself) she can terminate it if she decides (and evidently with laws like this in any manner she wants) to but if she decides to instead give birth the father has a lifetime of child support. The enire thing is simply messed up imo.

  18. #18

    Default

    this is a violent act and both parties are adults, stupid but still adults they both know this is the wrong thing to do. It's fetus? So what, have some respect for life and get it aborted in a clinic not in your trailer.

  19. #19

    Default

    Well during pregnancy certain hormonal imbalances and changes can lead to mental problems.

    http://www.bcrmh.com/disorders/pregnancy.htm

    From a legal perspective in this case the defence has better chances to get the female acquited rather than the male party. Also this article is pretty vague as we don't know if it was pre-meditated on the guys part and taking into consideration the states fetal law basically this guy was screwed either way. I know guys have it rough though in this world, a woman can take her kids and leave in the middle of the night and the law will not do anything about it. On the other hand if a guy takes his kids and splits they call it kidnapping and he gets :wub:ed. It happened to my uncle. His wife took the kids and left and he couldn't do anything about it because she was claiming he was abusive. Total bull. I agree that guys don't get a fair deal in most cases. My wife was pretty crazy during her pregnancy but I wouldn't stomp and punch her in the gut if she asked me to. Sounds like these people are trailer trash anyways so either now or later someone would have ended up in jail.

  20. #20
    Bovril's Avatar Primicerius
    Civitate Patrician

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,017

    Default

    I'm so glad I don't live in Texas.

    The defense argument was rediculously weak though. If two people beat someone to death, they both get convicted of murder, you don't quibble about who dealt the deathblow.

    Doesn't the law protecting the woman's right to procure an abortion allow for more unconventional methods. If it does, then wouldn't that be the best defense, that they were just carrying out an abortion together.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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