Hillary: Kill the brown babies or you get no aid

[FIND]

Unforunately, the issue of where life begins cannot be objectively answered. In that case, it is not the place of elected officials to determine that. The best way to answer that question is for society to decide that in some fashion. Weather it be a local or even state level referendum or a Constitutional Amendment to state where life begins.

Anything above a state level referendum (like a Constitutional Amendment) is politically unrealistic, in my view.

First, I'd ask, why is it not the place of elected officials to determine this? Elected officials SHOULD represent the majority.

Therein lies the problem. How can anyone determine whether something is right or wrong without being able to objectively answer the most basic of questions at its root. Therefore, one cannot say abortion is good or bad. I can say I am personally against the practice of it for the sake of convenience. But then again, just think of the lives many of these aborted babies would have. Many of them would be born into loveless homes, or homes that could not support them or raise them. Most abortions are among poverty level people and very young people.

The adoption argument.... well, in theory, adoption is a great option, but I don't know what kind of experience you have with that system.... but it is a nightmare. The process of adoption is incredibly difficult, those people who do adopt are only looking for the "good babies", so the system is crowded with children that nobody wants, and many people who do want to be parents, even ones who would take any child, cannot become parents due to whatever restrictions. I have members of my extended family who act as Foster Parents, and honestly, I am disgusted with that whole system.

Still though, once you boil down the argument, you are stating that pro-life or pro-choice can only be determined on a local level.... So, in a way, isn't that the best justification for a pro-choice approach? You are saying in essence that the people are the best to make this decision, so, what gives anyone the right to make the decision for someone else?

 

[foxpaws]

The Constitution does not give any indication where life begins. Yet you are now claiming it does.

No I am not - I am saying you need to use the words that are there - and if you do, then you can really only go with rights begin at birth...

On the one hand, you chastise those who distort the Constitution toward their own Pro-Life ends, and other hand, you distort the Constitution toward your own Pro-Choice ends.

All I have wanted to see is what you think (not support necessarily) are the parts of the constitution that would protect life before birth... 5th and 14th perhaps?

Shag - don't get so defensive - I am not trying to misrepresent you, I just would like some clarification - you have a tendency to talk in circles.

As I said earlier shag - we aren't going to change one person's mind here - I just want to throw around some ideas... I still think the mother as incubator discussion needs to happen before any level of 'life begins at <blank> and needs to be protected by the government' law is even considered.

I find that much more interesting than this discussion - at least that discussion hasn't been thrown around as much.

 

[foxpaws]

Still though, once you boil down the argument, you are stating that pro-life or pro-choice can only be determined on a local level.... So, in a way, isn't that the best justification for a pro-choice approach? You are saying in essence that the people are the best to make this decision, so, what gives anyone the right to make the decision for someone else?

+1 - In reality - when it comes really right down to it - it is a 'person' choice. If your representatives can't be trusted with it, then why should your neighbor be trusted with it?

 

[PetesSweets86]

Just give the baby fetus' to me. I'm sure I can come up with some great stew, bbq, and rotisserie recipes for the whole family to enjoy! Babies...it's the new pork! :-D

 

[shagdrum]

First, I'd ask, why is it not the place of elected officials to determine this? Elected officials SHOULD represent the majority.

'Should' and 'do' are two completely different things. The recent health care bill is a prime example of that. Also, it is not the place of government (at any level) to dictate morals from the top, down. You cannot legislate morality.

Therein lies the problem. How can anyone determine whether something is right or wrong without being able to objectively answer the most basic of questions at its root. Therefore, one cannot say abortion is good or bad.

It doesn't mean that no one can say weather or not abortion is good or bad. It simply means that determination is personal and subjective (I know it seems like semantics, but it is an important distinction).

Most people, in my estimation, do not view abortions as a good thing but a necessary evil at best. In fact, most people would find those who view abortion as "good" morally reprehensible.

Laws should reflect social norms, not dictate them. If a majority of a society decides that abortion should be banned, then it should be banned.

The adoption argument.... well, in theory, adoption is a great option, but I don't know what kind of experience you have with that system.... but it is a nightmare.

I have two cousins who were adopted. From what I can tell, it is a big part of how early you get involved and which organization. My uncle and his wife went through a Christian adoption agency and the paper work was finished before the children were even born.

An exceedingly inconvenient process is not a justification for abortion.

Still though, once you boil down the argument, you are stating that pro-life or pro-choice can only be determined on a local level.... So, in a way, isn't that the best justification for a pro-choice approach?

I am focused on process and the rule of law. What I am making is a Federalist/libertarian argument.

You are saying in essence that the people are the best to make this decision, so, what gives anyone the right to make the decision for someone else?

To ask "what gives them the right" assume that there is a personal "right" to an abortion. To understand my position, you have to reject that assumption, even if simply for the sake of argument.

This is not an issue of "freedom". There is no "right to an abortion". There is nothing in the Constitution that supports that. In fact the Roe v. Wade ruling is rooted in equivocation that distorts the Constitution.

My concern is with process and the rule of law. All law stems from individual morality. Something becomes so accepted by a society that it becomes normative and eventually law.

If society thinks abortion should be banned, then it should be banned. If society thinks that abortion should be a right, then it should be a right. However, it is not with in the mean, nor is it the place of elected officials to make that determination.

I am not saying that individuals are best suited to make decisions on this; that is not the focus of my argument. I am saying that society, in it's collective wisdom, is better suited to make that determination then elected officials.

 

[FIND]

You say:

You cannot legislate morality.

Laws should reflect social norms, not dictate them. If a majority of a society decides that abortion should be banned, then it should be banned.

then you say

My concern is with process and the rule of law. All law stems from individual morality. Something becomes so accepted by a society that it becomes normative and eventually law.

You cannot separate laws and morality. Arguing that you should is an exercise in futility. To say that law is dictating social norms and morality is a circulatory argument at best. There is almost always a minority that disagrees with a law and feels that someone is dictating social norms and morality.

I have two cousins who were adopted. From what I can tell, it is a big part of how early you get involved and which organization. My uncle and his wife went through a Christian adoption agency and the paper work was finished before the children were even born.

An exceedingly inconvenient process is not a justification for abortion.

That is a gross misrepresentation of what I was stating. I NEVER said the process was inconvenient and therefore it was not an option. Adoption is good too, but it is not a magic bullet.

I am focused on process and the rule of law. What I am making is a Federalist/libertarian argument.

huh? What does that have to do with what I said?

To ask "what gives them the right" assume that there is a personal "right" to an abortion. To understand my position, you have to reject that assumption, even if simply for the sake of argument.

I would not say people have a right to abortion. People have the right to make the decision. This decision must of course be weighed against personal values and the situation that individual is in.

This is not an issue of "freedom". There is no "right to an abortion". There is nothing in the Constitution that supports that. In fact the Roe v. Wade ruling is rooted in equivocation that distorts the Constitution.

That is just your opinion.

If society thinks abortion should be banned, then it should be banned. If society thinks that abortion should be a right, then it should be a right. However, it is not with in the mean, nor is it the place of elected officials to make that determination.

I am not saying that individuals are best suited to make decisions on this; that is not the focus of my argument. I am saying that society, in it's collective wisdom, is better suited to make that determination then elected officials.

Most states in the US have voted now and many times in the past on issues such as abortion. South Dakota for instance has voted on banning abortion in the last two elections. This last vote even had an exception for victims of rape, victims of incest, or situations that would put the mothers life in danger. Both times the majority voted against the ban, however there is nearly no place in this state where a person can have an abortion performed. The majority is pro-choice, despite the fact that the majority doesn't practice abortion.

 

[fossten]

See, you are really quick to ad hominem attacks. I haven't googled anything, nor have I looked up anything. I am speaking purely from memory, and at the disadvantage of having not seriously had this kind of discussion in over a decade. If I were to google this, I am certain I could present a better argument. However my aim is not to change your beliefs, I was simply stating that a different belief is justifiable, and given the image of God I have, acceptable as long as one lives a good life. Also, if as you say, the new testament does away with old testament law, and they both come from god, then why didn't god just give you the correct rules to begin with? Why did he give people a false religion for hundreds of years prior to sending out baby Jesus?

It wasn't a false religion. Now you're just being combative and obtuse. Really, you've read the Old Testament? I find it hard to believe. The Old covenant between the Jews and God was done away with because Jesus' arrival and death removed the intermediary of the priesthood. Instead of having to sacrifice a lamb without blemish once a year, a person could just go directly to God for forgiveness, since Christ was the perfect sacrifice. Of course, all of this is explained in the book of Hebrews, so if you really want to learn more about it you can go there. Good luck.

I wouldnt know what you can find online about that. I don't bother looking around. As far as teaching us that our feelings are unreliable and wicked? Self-loathing, are you a Catholic? I mock no one (except maybe Catholics in that last sentence, but it was light-hearted). All men are imperfect. Writing stories 1600-1700 years ago that had been passed around for centuries as a purely oral tradition does not make a man perfect or a saint. The people who originally told the stories were long dead before they were written down anyways.

The Bible wasn't preserved only orally. Ever heard of scrolls?

As far as any religious person saying that ANYTHING when it comes to interpretation of religion "flies in the face of logic" is illogical. Faith has nothing to do with logic.

That's right.

As far as what the bible teaches..... well, of the thousands of versions out there, I can say with 100% accuracy that NONE of them say exactly what the books said 1700 years ago. If you have done as much "research" as you have claimed, you would know that too. There is a reason the church along with the thousands of individuals who do so, research the bible and its history, along with the history of the church. Because what is written down in the history books isn't necessarily the truth. Ask any REAL religious or historical scholar, and they will tell you the same thing.

Okay, you're free to scoff rather than inquire. I didn't think you really wanted to know what I had to say on the matter, but thanks for saving me the trouble of wasting time explaining it to you. You've made up your mind and nobody, least of all a Bible scholar, is going to change it.

What is important is that you find your own faith, which you have obviously done. The problem is you seem to think that everyone else should have the exact same faith as you instead of helping them find their own faith. You get drawn into the trap of saying that you need to accept the bible on faith because it is God's word, then say that people need to accept it as God's word because the bible says so.

You seem to have a very suspicious attitude toward the Bible. I find myself wondering if you had a bad experience with church growing up, and that's why your fingers drip with vitriol.

Do not have any other god before God..... sounds like a very self-serving commandment for a perfect being without any need. Do you really believe that God created you to worship him? Do not commit adultery... Common sense should teach people that.

But Jesus taught that lusting after a woman was the same as adultery in your heart. Most people don't think they've broken that commandment until that's pointed out to them.

You're agnostic - so are you closed minded or not?

I did not claim you or the bible said any such thing either. You are presenting a straw man. I stated that following the beliefs without weighing them against your own faith and belief would be foolhardy. Therefore the bible, belief in god, and the teachings of the church are only worth what your perception of god tells you. If you do not weigh your faith every now and then, then you are just accepting these things without any justification. Therefore, if one blindly followed the teachings of the church and the bible, then their faith is worthless.

This is a direct quote:

For one last note, the bible clearly states many times that God does not control the hearts and minds of men. God may inspire men, gift them with visions and prophecy, but, how men interpret and record this is out of God's control, because God wants it that way. Sure God wants men to preserve his word, but this is also a test of man's faith. One could also say finding God's word is a test of faith. Blindly following men who claim to preach the word of God is not, in my opinion, true faith in God.

So yeah, you did say that, and my response was NOT a straw man.

That, would be a test of faith.

It was a yes or no question. I can see that you're dodging.

Once again, a very ignorant view. Just because I don't agree means that I don't comprehend it huh? Typical right-wing response BTW.

This has nothing to do with right wing. You've claimed to have knowledge of the Bible, yet you have repeatedly demonstrated a paucity of even a 12 year old Sunday School student's grasp on some of the more basic frameworks surrounding the Old and New Testaments. Sorry if that offends you - I don't really understand why an agnostic would be indignant at the idea that he wasn't fresh on Biblical concepts.

But wait:

I reject all of it. For what it is worth, I reject other religious text I have read as well.

And there you go. So your 'outrage' at being called ignorant was faux outrage, because you really have no interest or belief in the Bible at all.

So in reality, you're just wasting time talking about it. I figured, correctly, that you weren't interested in an actual discussion of the Bible. I trust we can conclude this discussion.

 

[PetesSweets86]

^^^^ Fascist

 

[fossten]

Mom, look at me, I'm posting on the interwebz!

Posting and you

 

[FIND]

Ignoring the rest in which you just continually restate what you have said before without even CONSIDERING what I said, your useless insults, and your insistence that I don't know what I am talking about just because I don't agree with you.....

I have had no bad experiences with religion, I just have found no justification for my faith. I found that I was only blindly following the teachings of various men. When I researched this in greater detail, I could find nothing that I believed in contained inside the book. It did not appear to me to be something that represented God or anything that would be God. I also found no reason for faith in God.

As far as the first part goes..... good luck with that misdirection. I was not calling Judaism a false religion on the basis of the ability to go straight to god for forgiveness due to Christ's sacrifice. You were the one who stated that I was referencing the old testament and that the new testament contradicts what I was saying. STRAW MAN!!!

But, since you seem to base your argument on stating that what you are stating is fact because you have faith in that, instead of using objective measure and proof.... why are we even bothering with this discussion? Honestly each of your responses boil down to "You're a dumb dumb head because you aren't Christian, which means you don't understand anything about Christianity or the bible."

Very Christian of you.

 

[PetesSweets86]

Posting and you

don't see your point, but maybe this describes more you

 

[shagdrum]

You cannot separate laws and morality. Arguing that you should is an exercise in futility.

Where have I separated laws and morality?

huh? What does that have to do with what I said?

It seems pretty clear that you don't understand what I am saying. That info should at least give you some indication as to where I am coming from.

I would not say people have a right to abortion. People have the right to make the decision. This decision must of course be weighed against personal values and the situation that individual is in.

Again, what do you based that "right" on? If you understand the nature or rights and how they are enshrined and protected in the founding documents then you should know that you cannot simply assert whatever you want as a right.

That is just your opinion.

In order to understand my position and what I am saying, you need to accept that premise. If you can't (or won't) do that, then we are both wasting our time.

 

[fossten]

Ignoring the rest in which you just continually restate what you have said before without even CONSIDERING what I said, your useless insults, and your insistence that I don't know what I am talking about just because I don't agree with you.....

I have had no bad experiences with religion, I just have found no justification for my faith. I found that I was only blindly following the teachings of various men. When I researched this in greater detail, I could find nothing that I believed in contained inside the book. It did not appear to me to be something that represented God or anything that would be God. I also found no reason for faith in God.

As far as the first part goes..... good luck with that misdirection. I was not calling Judaism a false religion on the basis of the ability to go straight to god for forgiveness due to Christ's sacrifice. You were the one who stated that I was referencing the old testament and that the new testament contradicts what I was saying. STRAW MAN!!!

But, since you seem to base your argument on stating that what you are stating is fact because you have faith in that, instead of using objective measure and proof.... why are we even bothering with this discussion? Honestly each of your responses boil down to "You're a dumb dumb head because you aren't Christian, which means you don't understand anything about Christianity or the bible."

Very Christian of you.

Yaaaawwwwwwnnn.

You're pathetic when you're angry. And you just misrepresented everything I said. How very idiotic of you. I highly suggest anger management. I hope you don't have kids - I fear for their safety.

Either way, do yourself a favor and make sure you know something about a topic before strutting around with your collar popped - it keeps you from looking like a bigger tool than you already do.

 

[fossten]

don't see your point, but maybe this describes more you

Easy on the crack pipe, Pete.

 

[PetesSweets86]

Easy on the crack pipe, Pete.

as long as your off your religeous rocker

 

[FIND]

Yaaaawwwwwwnnn.

You're pathetic when you're angry. And you just misrepresented everything I said. How very idiotic of you. I highly suggest anger management. I hope you don't have kids - I fear for their safety.

Either way, do yourself a favor and make sure you know something about a topic before strutting around with your collar popped - it keeps you from looking like a bigger tool than you already do.

wth?

You are back to those kind of responses again? Accuse me of being angry and idiotic when you don't have some other type of canned response?


By the way, I have three sons. Even my 1st grader has more intelligent come-backs than you have demonstrated.

Ad Hominem attacks in the extreme. Well, maybe if you keep using them, no one will notice how wrong you are.

 

[FIND]

Where have I separated laws and morality?

Just pointing out where the reasoning becomes circulatory.

It seems pretty clear that you don't understand what I am saying. That info should at least give you some indication as to where I am coming from.

Try as I might, I still cannot figure out where you are trying to draw a connection here.

Again, what do you based that "right" on? If you understand the nature or rights and how they are enshrined and protected in the founding documents then you should know that you cannot simply assert whatever you want as a right.

This is a negative proof fallacy. This would be the same as me asking you to prove that you don't have that right. The people have the right to (sometimes in a round about fashion) make laws and rules that represent their ideals, values and beliefs. Therefore the people have the right to decide whether abortion is reasonable. I cannot prove it is a right any more than you can prove that it is not.

In order to understand my position and what I am saying, you need to accept that premise. If you can't (or won't) do that, then we are both wasting our time.

I do accept and understand your opinion. I just do not share your opinion. I said nothing further than that.

 

[shagdrum]

Just pointing out where the reasoning becomes circulatory.

By asserting I am doing something I am not doing?

This is a negative proof fallacy.

No, it is not. However, it takes an understanding of what Rights truly are (and are not) and how they come about to know that.

I cannot prove it is a right any more than you can prove that it is not.

I can prove (and have proven) that it is not a right protected under the Constitution.

I do accept and understand your opinion.

I don't really think you do understand my argument. However, I also get the impression that you are not very interested in understanding it...

 

[fossten]

wth?

You are back to those kind of responses again? Accuse me of being angry and idiotic when you don't have some other type of canned response?


By the way, I have three sons. Even my 1st grader has more intelligent come-backs than you have demonstrated.

Ad Hominem attacks in the extreme. Well, maybe if you keep using them, no one will notice how wrong you are.

Pot, meet kettle. I tried to discuss this with you in a civil manner and you kept attacking. You obviously wanted to be a fool, so I'm not suffering you.

If you can't take the heat, you know what to do.

 

[foxpaws]

I can prove (and have proven) that it is not a right protected under the Constitution.

And it is pretty easy to prove that the constitution completely fails to protect 'property', except in extreme cases - where the government isn't allowed to just take things without compensation. It doesn't even try - heck it doesn't even protect 'the fruits of your labor'.

So, why is it important to prove that 'abortion is a right protected under the constitution'? Or prove that it isn't.

It isn't important at all.. is it shag?

 

[FIND]

Pot, meet kettle. I tried to discuss this with you in a civil manner and you kept attacking. You obviously wanted to be a fool, so I'm not suffering you.

If you can't take the heat, you know what to do.

Where did I attack you?

Where are these posts you insist you made with any degree of civility?

Because every post you made you in some way called me an idiot, accused me of being enraged or said that I was just googling an argument. Feel FREE to correct me if I am wrong. But, the only way I see that happening is if you go back and edit all your posts....

 

[FIND]

By asserting I am doing something I am not doing?

When did I say you were? I just said the argument becomes circulatory and pointed out why.

No, it is not. However, it takes an understanding of what Rights truly are (and are not) and how they come about to know that.

Yes it is. You are asking me to produce evidence that the constitution specifically guarantees a right that the constitution doesn't speak of either way. This would be like asking me to justify my right to walk around downtown without having to see naked fat people smearing themselves with butter in the middle of the street. Besides, I am not saying specifically that there is a right to abortion. I am saying that people have a right to a voice to declare what their own values and opinions are. The majority in this country believes that people should also use their own voice to determine whether to practice abortion or not. Your responses to this point are bordering on a red herring.

I can prove (and have proven) that it is not a right protected under the Constitution.

No, you posted opinion. This is not proof.

I don't really think you do understand my argument. However, I also get the impression that you are not very interested in understanding it...

I'm getting the impression that you don't want to answer no matter what.

 

[shagdrum]

When did I say you were? I just said the argument becomes circulatory and pointed out why.

You said I separated law from morality (which I didn't do) and that somehow makes my argument circular.

You are asking me to produce evidence that the constitution specifically guarantees a right that the constitution doesn't speak of either way.

It was a rhetorical question meant to prove a point. Apparently you didn't grasp the point.

In post #81 you asserted that people have the "right to make the decision". Unless you can provide something to back that up, your claim is nothing more then proof by assertion fallacy. You can't simply assert anything is a right. There has to be some basis for it. You need to understand the nature of Rights and how they come about.

Even if there is some "right to make the decision" (whatever that means) it is not protected under the Constitution. So your point is utterly irrelevant to the discussion and, in the context of what you were responding to, almost seems to be a dodge to avoid having to accept a view you seem to be opposed to; if even simple for the sake of argument. If you can't do that, then you can not understand the the overall argument I am making. That would mean I am wasting my time.

The majority in this country believes that people should also use their own voice to determine whether to practice abortion or not.

There is no way to know that EXCEPT through a direct vote. Any question on any poll on the issue of abortion is inherently leading, unscientific and leads to un-empirical (and worthless) results. Most any basic political stats class will tell you that.

No, you posted opinion. This is not proof.

I made specific, disprovable statements that, if true, verify my claim. That is not simply "opinion".

I'm getting the impression that you don't want to answer no matter what.

No, I just don't want to waste my time articulating a position when that position has already been rejected beforehand.

The fact that you are contentious of a few simple facts and premises suggests that this is a waste of my time.

 

[fossten]

No, I just don't want to waste my time articulating a position when that position has already been rejected beforehand.

The fact that you are contentious of a few simple facts and premises suggests that this is a waste of my time.

Yeah, it's called poisoning the well.

 

[FIND]

You said I separated law from morality (which I didn't do) and that somehow makes my argument circular.

Then you obviously misunderstood what I said.

It was a rhetorical question meant to prove a point. Apparently you didn't grasp the point.

In post #81 you asserted that people have the "right to make the decision". Unless you can provide something to back that up, your claim is nothing more then proof by assertion fallacy. You can't simply assert anything is a right. There has to be some basis for it. You need to understand the nature of Rights and how they come about.

Even if there is some "right to make the decision" (whatever that means) it is not protected under the Constitution. So your point is utterly irrelevant to the discussion and, in the context of what you were responding to, almost seems to be a dodge to avoid having to accept a view you seem to be opposed to; if even simple for the sake of argument. If you can't do that, then you can not understand the the overall argument I am making. That would mean I am wasting my time.

Then is it your contention that the people do NOT have the right to decide what is law in this country? Though honestly I think you are making a straw man by your aggressive attempt at responding directly to that statement out of context instead of what I said.

There is no way to know that EXCEPT through a direct vote. Any question on any poll on the issue of abortion is inherently leading, unscientific and leads to un-empirical (and worthless) results. Most any basic political stats class will tell you that.

Nearly every state has voted on abortion bans in recent elections. Tell me how many have banned abortion

I made specific, disprovable statements that, if true, verify my claim. That is not simply "opinion".

Your opinion you posted earlier is only provable or disprovable depending on when you believe life begins, and a negative proof fallacy.

No, I just don't want to waste my time articulating a position when that position has already been rejected beforehand.

The fact that you are contentious of a few simple facts and premises suggests that this is a waste of my time.

I am rejecting it because it sounds absurd the way you posted it. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify, but you have responded angrily every time. I am left with the idea that you made this statement and are asking that we accept it for no reason aside from that being your belief, or that you have no justification for making the statement outside of your own beliefs, and you were just trying to be dismissive of another point of view and were relying on verbosity.