»

[Dan]

tormedhammaren wrote:
Only the police can use firearms in self-defense. Note that the Norwegian police don't normally carry firearms.

They have them secured in their cars. if I remmeber correctly?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

95% of the time, abortion is being used as a convenience tool and a contraceptive

Source?

[KennyR]

Source?

I already told you. You can go look up the abortion figures yourself. Even with teenage pregancies, rape, and genetic diseases all factored together, the total number of abortions is far, far larger. This only points to one inescapable fact. Abortions ARE being used as a lifestyle choice, and this is NOT what they were legalised for. So much for the laws being tight.

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:

Of course it is, social changes are needed, rather than unenforcable laws.

The permissiveness is my point. Simply turning a blind eye to anything that is socially wrong doesn't solve it either, and that's a fact. In the Netherlands, most illegal drugs are hard. Here, they are mostly soft (for now). In the Netherlands, most illegal prostitutes are underage.

Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

Here they are all in their 40s.

I doubt that.
The key is going after the pimps not the prostitutes. As long as it´s outlawed there will be pimps.
I don´t know the law and situation in Netherlands, but it seems to be pretty succesful in Denmark.

How is the Dutch super-liberalism solving anything?

How is authoritarian laws solving it

Has it solved the problems of addiction

It´s a social and psychological problem, but I give you that they dont seem to have less people addicted to hard drugs than any other western society

or human sexual slavery?

I can´t imagine the dutch law being diffrent on that!
In Denmark it´s pretty pointless for the eastblock mafia to do trafficking because the legal prostitutes finds out and report it to the police immediately.

No, it hasn't. It's just ignored them. No, perhaps worse - it's made them more culturally acceptable.

But banning prostitution makes it ok to abuse women!

Socialist or not, I'm afraid I'm a humanist first and foremost, so my ethics don't allow me to accept abortion,

Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals. Quick stop the killing off wheatseeds for use as humanfood. It shouldn´t be used as contraceptive however but that is for medical reasons(both STDs and future sterileness, not moral.
Information instead of harder laws!

euthanasia,

the cons outweigh the pros, but that can change with a different law in a different society

prostitution,

How do you suggest stoping it? And more important the other crimes that surrounds it!

or legal narcotics.

Let the grass grow

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
Well since it´s legal if they are over 18, duh!

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't. There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

How is authoritarian laws solving it

Laws work sometimes, don't they? They seem to, otherwise someone could just walk into your house and take all your stuff. Is putting them in jail for doing it authoritarian? No, it's punishing them for breaking your human rights - right to personal property.

I doubt that.
The key is going after the pimps not the prostitutes. As long as it´s outlawed there will be pimps.
I don´t know the law and situation in Netherlands, but it seems to be pretty succesful in Denmark.

Here, the key is not getting people hooked on drugs so they don't have to get on the game on the first place to feed their habit. Or didn't you know that most illegal prostitutes were addicts? Most here don't even have pimps.

Target the people who use the hookers, and maybe that will be more successful. They really aren't very nice people.

But banning prostitution makes it ok to abuse women!

Explain how that can be. Banning prostitution sends out a clear social message that human beings aren't objects for sexual gratification, or cattle, or subhuman things for pleasure.

Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals.

Says WHO??

Not science for sure, since it's already been proven that after a few weeks a foetus can think, feel pain, and dream. What exactly do you need to be 'fully' human? Birth? What if the baby isn't born but developed in an artificial womb? Are they always inhuman? How far can you extend the 'not being human' thing? To a year old? So then you can strangle babies and throw them in the trash to keep the population down?

As far as I'm concerned, foetuses are human beings and have full human rights, unalienable and untouchable.

Let the grass grow

Let the cancerous tumours grow.

[cecilia]

Fetuses aren´t humans! or animals. Quick stop the killing off wheatseeds for use as humanfood. It shouldn´t be used as contraceptive however but that is for medical reasons(both STDs and future sterileness, not moral. Information instead of harder laws!

not only information, but develop contraception that is 100%

I just love it when people complain about abortion but no one ever seems to want to solve the problem logically. if you have contraception that worked perfectly, than there would be no common need for abortions. most abortions would be emergenies.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't. There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

Mature persons can decide about themselves. Your argument does not differ from that of the church which condemns homosexuality.
It is decided that 18 is the age that you can make decisions on your own. You may vote, may drive a car, may drink booze, join the army, etcetera.
Also, life begins after 13 weeks of pregnancy.
Where to begin defining life? Well, if we follow your ideas, we might as well ban condoms and the pill.

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

Mature persons can decide about themselves. Your argument does not differ from that of the church which condemns homosexuality.

Just because the church supports a view that's wrong doesn't mean the church supporting a view makes it wrong!

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Just because the church supports a view that's wrong doesn't mean the church supporting a view makes it wrong!

Well, prostitution is 'as is', and it does not harm anyone when it is performed according our law. On that point, there is freedom of choice.

[Glaucus]

T_Bone wrote:
Just because the church supports a view that's wrong doesn't mean the church supporting a view makes it wrong!

Nah, but a church all on it's own is wrong.

- Mike

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:

Says WHO??
Not science for sure, since it's already been proven that after a few weeks a foetus can think, feel pain, and dream. What exactly do you need to be 'fully' human? Birth? What if the baby isn't born but developed in an artificial womb? Are they always inhuman? How far can you extend the 'not being human' thing? To a year old? So then you can strangle babies and throw them in the trash to keep the population down?

As far as I'm concerned, foetuses are human beings and have full human rights, unalienable and untouchable.

If it doesn´t breathe by itself...
...then it´s just dead meat.
That might sound hard but so is nature.
Of course that would be too hard on the parents, so I´m happy with current laws.
You discussed euthanasia earlier do you really want to discuss all the freaks who shouldn´t be born with me?

Let the cancerous tumours grow.

But you get the cancer mostly from tar, turpentine and that stuff, not to mention paperash from cigarettes, tobacco itselfs stand for a very little part of it.
The same is true for the grass.

[KennyR]

Dan wrote:
If it doesn´t breathe by itself...
...then it´s just dead meat.

Your definition is illogical. People have had assisted breathing for up to 50 years. They are not dead meat. They can do everything you can - except breathe on their own. And move of course, since they're inside the machine...

You don't have any definition of human, do you? I doubt it - because there isn't one. Nature was never that easy to define. Any more definitions to try? Able to communicate...oh wait, autistics can't. Able to think...oh wait, comatose patients can't.

The trouble is, most of the definitions people use for human are also applicable to the human fetus after just a few weeks of gestation.

Dehumanising is what Nazis did so they could justify killing 6 million Jews. It's what pro-abortionists do to justify abortion. I do not, and never will, accept dehumanisation of anyone or anything I consider to be human.

You discussed euthanasia earlier do you really want to discuss all the freaks who shouldn´t be born with me?

Depends what you define as 'freak'. If homosexuality was ever proven to be genetic, I bet people would want abortions for that too. Some people define 'having a normal life' as 'being able to reproduce'. Are you willing to go down that path? If not, I advise you to refine your definitions.

But you get the cancer mostly from tar, turpentine and that stuff, not to mention paperash from cigarettes, tobacco itselfs stand for a very little part of it.
The same is true for the grass.

Nicotine is a poisonous alkaloid of the same family as strychnine. If you boiled up some cigarettes in alcohol and drunk it you would die. It is a very nasty, addictive compound that should be avoided. THC is less addictive but don't think it doesn't have side effects. When you mess with the chemistry of the most complicated thing known to man, you can't begin to know what you'll do.

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:

And the Dutch fool themselves into thinking that, if prostitution is legal, the problems will all go away. They don't.

Alot of them will go away, as seen in Denmark.

There's always someone who wants something more. What to do then, legalise sex with nine year olds because it becomes a large social issue?

I don´t get your reasoning here at all????:-?

Laws work sometimes, don't they? They seem to, otherwise someone could just walk into your house and take all your stuff. Is putting them in jail for doing it authoritarian? No, it's punishing them for breaking your human rights - right to personal property.

Works great on the drug problem, does it?

Here, the key is not getting people hooked on drugs so they don't have to get on the game on the first place to feed their habit. Or didn't you know that most illegal prostitutes were addicts?

OF course I knew that.

Most here don't even have pimps.

In Denmark I definitely know that they don´t have pimps. Hell, they even stod up to a Hells Angels protection scheme.

Target the people who use the hookers, and maybe that will be more successful. They really aren't very nice people

They tried to do that here, doesn´t work.
Before we had no law, except that it was taxable income and of course against pimping.
Now we have a law that forbids the purchase of sex but not the selling. It didn´t work they could just as well have outlawed it totally, which is what the police wants.
Wonder why ;-)
They funny thing is that it´s still taxable income:
http://fb.provocation.net/www.flashb...butte/English/
http://iafrica.com/loveandsex/news/225981.htm

Explain how that can be. Banning prostitution sends out a clear social message that human beings aren't objects for sexual gratification, or cattle, or subhuman things for pleasure.

No, it sends the clear message that women, because it is mostly women, don´t have the right to decide over their own bodies!
You would fit nicely in with those old patriarch in OT!

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:

Your definition is illogical. People have had assisted breathing for up to 50 years. They are not dead meat.
They can do everything you can - except breathe on their own. And move of course, since they're inside the machine...

Sorry but that doesn´t get you anywhere when talking about the moment someone becomes alive.

You don't have any definition of human, do you?

They worst a**hole among the other animals

I doubt it - because there isn't one. Nature was never that easy to define. Any more definitions to try? Able to communicate...oh wait, autistics can't. Able to think...oh wait, comatose patients can't.

My cat can do both, so can a deer or a rabbit.
But I haven´t seen a incubator for a moose yet.
Why is humans so much better?

Nature isn´t nice!

The trouble is, most of the definitions people use for human are also applicable to the human fetus after just a few weeks of gestation.

Most of the definitons is based on prejudice because its about humans

Dehumanising is what Nazis did so they could justify killing 6 million Jews.

What they did to the horses on the eastern front was just as horrific.

It's what pro-abortionists do to justify abortion. I do not, and never will, accept dehumanisation of anyone or anything I consider to be human.

I consider my cat to be worth more than certain humans.
Giving the human a special status amongst animals isn´t right, because then you can give certain humans a special status among the humans. Like some jews do "Gods choosen people" or like the nazis did.

Depends what you define as 'freak'. If homosexuality was ever proven to be genetic, I bet people would want abortions for that too. Some people define 'having a normal life' as 'being able to reproduce'. Are you willing to go down that path? If not, I advise you to refine your definitions.

Try the ones you mentioned earlier!
Have you seen some of the people they keep around just because the parents is stupid?
For example this guy at a school for handicapped where I had sewing class, he couldn´t move, make sounds or even focus his eyes. He just sat in a wheelchair and stared at the same point in the air about a feet away from him. He only swallowed by reflex when they feed him.
There is braindead and there is those who never been brainalive.

There is nothing wrong with homosexuals, they are even present among the animals.

And the retards seems happy enough, even if I would never have a child with a hereditary mental retardation.
I just don´t see a point in letting them be born if they have a mental retardation that it is possible to diagnose relatively early in the pregnacy.
[edit-I didn´t really think this through, I don´t even know if there is a herditary condition where they end up as the guy above, probably not, its just as likely that it was a injury caused at birth then there is no choice]

[Glaucus]

Boy, this thread has sure covered a lot of ground!

- Mike