As I said above,if there is some such respect which actually exists and which means we MUST therefore treat the interest of any one man or woman — Dachshund

I suppose that's up to you. If you want to deny rights to others then you have no leg to stand on when others deny rights to you. This would also entail you binding over for the Queen, and I understand that Donald also likes to give it out too.

, A child physically old enough to perform sexually should be given appropriate information about sex and sexuality. — Bitter Crank

Far too late.
Children are much better equipped to know all about sex from the earliest possible age. As soon as they can talk. This protects them and prepares them.

this made it very difficult for him to free the slaves on his own volition. — Sydasis

Boo Hoo.

Abortion should be legal. (Only under certain circumstances) — René Descartes

I answered for this reason. Though abortion should be the decision of the woman carry the foetus, as the body should be inviolable, abortion is less desirable the longer the pregnancy continues. It is the role of law makers to encourage wise and sensible decisions by those that the law are designed to impose upon. Thus timely abortions that do less hard to both the foetus and the woman need to be encouraged. What needs to be discouraged is abortion as a thoughtless means of contraception.
In the UK where all health care is free the law; best practice; and provision have to agree. It is the duty of the democratic government to reflect the requirements of society. At the moment we seem to have things about right, though I think a reduction in the cut off date might be coming down the pipeline as care of premature children continues to improve it becomes less justifiable to abort what is a viable foetus.

It is not fair on medical staff to expect them to destroy a 24 week old foetus when they know that such a 'child' could survive with the right care.

I think 24 weeks is too long, and needs to drop to 20. The only exception to allowing it beyond 20 weeks would be to protect the life of the woman, and in cases where the foetus would be severely disabled.

If you believe in determinism, than what you are saying is fine. But if you believe in free will like I do, God has no control over what we do and therefore we are responsible for the evil we commit. — René Descartes

You have achieved a great feat in this post..
At once you make a non sequitur, and a contradiction in the same moment. You assert that humans have free will but deny it to god!
If god has no control of his actions then no one is responsible.
If god is all powerful then only he is responsible.
If God is not all powerful then why call him god?
The only safe conclusion is that there is no god.

I've seen Forums like this get too censorious. They end up with a few cranks remaining, and the heart of the forum dies

is already applied to about 12 million people in the UK, simply by virtue of their being under 18, it can hardly be labelled "horrific". — Pseudonym

False analogy for the reason I stated above.

No, it is (or it would be if anyone were to actually do it), discrimination in order to avoid spoilt ballots. — Pseudonym

Boo Hoo.
The spoilt ballot is in itself a political statement.
Get over yourself!

Yeah, but i think humans have killed more than God has. Some might say humans have even killed God, but that's another story. — René Descartes

Don't be absurd. As god is the designer, every death is his responsibility.

rooted in the belief that pleasure and pain are the only motivators of human behavior. — MonfortS26

So much , so obvious. But you are changing the goal posts.
All mammals, and birds, probably reptiles too; experience pain and pleasure.
Let me remind you, that you were talking about 'happiness'.

If this were the case, then every trait would either help or hurt the ability for an organism to reproduce. From a survival of the fittest mindset, traits that enable a species to survive and reproduce are obviously helpful. But traits that do not do so in any way are hurtful because they rely on the absence of a trait that is helpful. Saying that evolutionary psychology is a fantasy science is like saying that evolution is a fantasy science. — MonfortS26

Well... obviously, except that at any given time 99% of all traits are survival neutral. The only ones that are significant are really important are negative ones - and they have to negatively impact on reproduction. Since the evolution is not 'interested', then you cannot say that any given traits has made a positive contribution, since the only rubric is having viable progeny. And that could be the result of an apparently pathological need to rape!!
I do not think you have any warrant to distill ONE emotion such as happiness out of the entire human set of emotions. Hate, since it also is part of human experience is as valid a candidate for an evo-psych analysis. But this is the myth of evo-psych, that they just cherry pick something and think of the nice traits and decide that is why we have it. It's rubbish. Because happiness can lead to not bothering to have children. Contentment can mean wanting to keep what you have rather then burden your life with kids!

One could argue that happiness has evolved into life as a survival mechanism. — MonfortS26

Evolution works FROM variation, not towards them. This makes the emergence of happiness all the more interesting. In fact all emotional states are evolved, as so each has to be offered towards this perspective. Hatred, love, guile, loyalty ... the whole panoply of human emotions have stood the test of survival and have had to remain to hosts who have had to produce viable progeny.

But evolution is not a thing that can choose or meld the creature's emotional spectrum. The only rubric is that some fail to reproduce.
So nothing really can be said on this topic despite the gallons of ink that are spilled by the fantasy science of evolutionary psychology.... except masturbatory speculation, based on a false and backwards teleology.

There were no Christians when Jesus was alive. Jesus was Jewish and was preaching to Jews. — Bitter Crank

Well DUH.

..to build a case on what Jesus didn't say.. — Bitter Crank

You wonder why people take issue with you? Christianity is not built on "what he said", It is built on what he is reported to have said. FFS. I think you need to tone down the patronising pedanticism, wake up and realise that people are smarter than you think; even smarter than you.

Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality — Bitter Crank

So the point I was making; that you can be Christian AND be pro-abortion goes for supporting gay rights too.

I don't think it is "horrific" to deny the vote to someone who is incapable of understanding what it is for and what their choices mean. I do think that if we are to allow the mentally ill to vote so long as they have the most basic grasp of what it means (which I agree with) then it is an horrific insult to a well educated and concerned 14 year old to be told that we have so little faith in them that we rate their capabilities below those of the seriously mentally ill. — Pseudonym

You are trying to impose a law that is useless.
It's discrimination for the sake of it.
If every single person who was mentally ill, incapable of rational choice, or with any significant mental disability it would make no difference to the outcome of any election, as they are few in number and have a limited choice in candidates.
Unless you are trying to disallow millions of voters what is the point of discriminating against the most vulnerable people in society?

Any benefit you think you might gain, would be wiped out completely by the negative effects of trying to impose a ban, and the wholesale rejection of groups of vulnerable people.

This is what the "gun debate" looks like in the USA.
https://thinkprogress.org/parkland-shooting-survivor-forced-off-facebook-6fc397ab2b9f/

"murder" = killing another living creature, but especially a human being.
— Agustino — René Descartes

If killing animals is murder, than humanity has murdered far more animals than human beings. — René Descartes

And god is the biggest murderer of all.
Miscarriage is his choice of abortion, and the plagues and diseases of the world are his games.

What's your point?
Christians are not Jews and there is nothing to suggest per se, that abortion is wrong. God does it all the time; we call that a miscarriage.
Jesus could have said something against infanticide and abortion but failed to do so. Both practices were extremely common throughout the ancient world. They were a practical response in a world where rape and poverty were common, and the chance for adoption or child services was nil. Carrying a foetus to full term could have meant selling the child into slavery.

No - Se is in fact real!!! Honestly!

Generally, any one found mentally incompetent cannot vote, but whether that applies to those with Down's Syndrome appears to vary. — Hanover

The thread is about the UK where this discrimination does not exist.

But thanks for the info. Part so the US can be very backwards indeed. It's a wonder women can vote.

I know what Aideen the Fairy looks like. She visits me everynight and gives me a neck massage!!!

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." — Dachshund

"MEN" (not women) are not even created!

But I think this is not meant as astatement of fact, but of an assertion of political right. The "forefathers" were reacting against the privilege of rank and title that men (and they meant men) in Britain enjoyed by birth. The aristocrats were seen as holding political power due to birth and not through any more valuable character.

So I think you are viewing this problem by misunderstanding the assertion. Men are equal under the law. Those that drafted the constitution were not stupid.

Intellectual Deficiency Disorders (IDD) like Down Syndrome and what was referred to by psychiatrists in the past as Mental Retardation; — Dachshund

I suggest you spend an afternoon with a few people with Down's and try to tell them they are not allowed to vote. I think you might surprise yourself.
The treatment of Down's people has ben transformed in my lifetime. Previously they were dismissed as retarded and locked away. Revisions in care have transformed lives.

As is the case with the vast majority of 16 year olds. Who are nonetheless disenfranchised. — Pseudonym

I'd agree that we need to extend the vote to 16years too. I assume that you too have an age limit in mind though? One that is not completely arbitrary?
There is a key difference between age and mental capacity which makes your analogy false. Age is wholly a linear spectrum where we have a clear case of growing capability. The same cannot be said of "mental disabilities"

For my money anyone with enough volition to register, take the voting card to the booth and make a choice is enough. I imagine that there are some that are capable of doing this but would not make a wise choice; or a choice of value to society or democracy - but since the criteria are subjective I do not think it would be practical or wise to weed out this tiny number. And who would decide those criteria.

"Mental disability" covers a huge and diverse field, making it impossible to compare with age.
Stroke victims alone feature a massive range of diverse abilities. Down's syndrome are a significant group in society and I would not want them to be disbarred from participation.
Mental Health services is a hot political topic; underfunded with patchy provision throughout the western world. The idea that you would give insult to (maybe) millions of people to prevent them voting is horrific.

Most religions have a belief in some sort of afterlife. Taking specifically the belief in a heaven and a hell, I would like people's opinions on what these would look like. — René Descartes

They look exactly what they are; fantasies.

I was using Agustino's definition, which is simply "intentionally killing a human". It's not a definition I agree with. — Michael

Beware of false definitions; A Gusty is full of them.

You are talking nonsense. Jesus and all his followers were under the Lex Romana.
Jesus' silence speaks volumes.

So what's your argument that the 'moderately arbitrary' age method is better than the 'moderately arbitrary' IQ test method? — Pseudonym

I'm not saying that. What I would suggest is that even the mentally ill have political interests, and their voice is as valid as any one else.
Passing a test with all its problems is not a valid way to disenfranchise people.
Such tests would discriminate by ethnicity and education. I could not accept that.

AKA
Dick Tater!!

Abortion, like self-defence, might be one of those occasions where murder is justified. — Michael

Murder is not justified. I think you mean justified homicide.

1) Judea was a ROMAN province and hence was under the lex Romana.
2) Jesus said NOTHING against either abortion or infanticide.
3) Run along now please!

Please quote your sources anytime you feel able.

Despite infanticide and abortion being permitted under the law, Jesus was COMPLETELY mute on the topic.

I don't see anything wrong with abortion. It's a woman's right to choose if she wants a child or not.
— René Descartes
And you believe in God? — Agustino

There is absolutely NO contradiction here. Abortion, infanticide and abandonment of unwanted children was common in Jesus' time. He made NO pronouncements against these practices
.

Age is not entirely arbitrary as you imply with your comment.
Age of consent, although a blunt instrument means that a a five year old cannot legally choose.

Banning a person from voting due to failing a test is impractical, open to abuse and would only allow further restriction to follow, by changes to the test.

For example the IQ test is limited by several factors.
The previous experience and education of the person tested
His degree of familiarity with the subject matter of the test
His motivation or desire to achieve a good score, in the appropriate time frame.
His rapport with the tester
his knowledge of the language in which the test is conducted. This includes skills at basic literacy and numeracy.
his physical health and well-being.
Cultural and ethnic preconception also skew the results.

Since the number of people with mental disabilities is minor the existing qualifications such as motivation, effort to register, and to vote and choose is enough to deter those with severe problems, and the process of candidate selection precludes ridiculous choices.
Even where ridiculous candidates are on the ballot paper they have little chance of winning. The Monster Raving Loony Party has never achieved 3% in any election.

https://www.omrlp.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party

Vote for Richard Potato!!!!

These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop. — Dachshund

If they cannot measure the ability to do the test; what chance has it got of measuring intelligence. LOL!
IQ tests are sexist, ethnocentric and only measure specific areas of intelligence.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

https://www.livestrong.com/article/127284-disadvantages-iq-tests/

https://revisesociology.com/2017/08/15/why-iq-tests-may-not-measure-intelligence/

Any consideration of applying IQ testing as some sort of rubric to qualify a person to Vote is absurd in the extreme.
The only qualification has to be the ability to register, and choose.

What country are you talking about?
If you are speaking of the USA, what exactly do you mean by "banned from public ownership"? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

...I had in mind grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc in the USA

↪charleton well I contend your "claim" that abortion is a right — LostThomist

("Contest" I think you mean)
But you have no grounds. A woman's body is not yours to violate with your personal moral stance.

Then by the same logic, the holocaust was also ok because it was lawfully passed by the recognized German Parliament, Slavery was only because it was legal along with segregation. — LostThomist

False analogy. We are talking about abusing the rights of a woman who may not wish to carry a foetus just because YOU decide she should. The legal killing or enslaving of people are different cases.

The same is true tor trying to excuse abortion simply because it is currently legal. — LostThomist

It's nothing to do with you, what a woman does with her own body. Forcing her to carry a foetus is a right you do not have.

I had in mind grenades, tanks, attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombs, machine guns, RPGs, etc when I made my comment. Civilians don't have access to these quintessential weapons of war. — Thorongil

Have you, or anyone on this thread, asked WHY is it that in a country that has a 'right to bear arms', that these arms are banned from public ownership?