[quote]pookie wrote:
If Hillary was the only anti-abortion candidate, would that be enough for you to vote for her?
[/quote]
Yes.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
…
The consistent and unending evaporation of our liberties I believe would be next.
Who would I vote for if they were all anti-abortion candidates? That becomes a much more interesting question then. Not Hillary, that’s for damn sure. Other than that I might have to just right myself in and let the chips fall where they may.
I am Canadian too, but I do get a vote…Duel citizenship.
What about liberty to have an abortion?
Where do one persons liberties stop and anothers begin?
I agree that people have a right not to be murdered/aborted. I am not sure where to draw the line after that. [/quote]
If I did not believe it to be a human life and hence, murder, I wouldn’t give a shit about abortions. It’s not rights I am worried about. I think the taking of a human life for reasons other than defense of self and/or family is wrong. Therefore I think abortion is wrong and therefore should be outlawed.
[quote]pat wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
pat wrote:
…
Therefore I think abortion is wrong and therefore should be outlawed.[/quote]
…except in certain cases, where I would like it to be retroactive.
[quote]pat wrote:
I think the taking of a human life for reasons other than defense of self and/or family is wrong. [/quote]
So I take it you opposed the war on Iraq?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
I think the taking of a human life for reasons other than defense of self and/or family is wrong.
So I take it you opposed the war on Iraq?[/quote]
Pat and others,
This person–and I use the term here very loosely–Lixy seems to have an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
As a public service, I will propose to post a reference to Darfur whenever possible, noting that in Darfur is a genocide of Arabs against other Muslims, with 200 to 300 thousand dead, and 2.5 million homeless in an unforgiving desert.
When Lixy posts in Chinese body-building websites or Islamic websites, or anywhere, his/her/its studied horror, then we will know his/her/its affliction is curtailed and his/her/its moral honesty will not be suspect.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Pat and others,
This person–and I use the term here very loosely–Lixy seems to have an obsessive-compulsive disorder.
As a public service, I will propose to post a reference to Darfur whenever possible, noting that in Darfur is a genocide of Arabs against other Muslims, with 200 to 300 thousand dead, and 2.5 million homeless in an unforgiving desert.
When Lixy posts in Chinese body-building websites or Islamic websites, or anywhere, his/her/its studied horror, then we will know his/her/its affliction is curtailed and his/her/its moral honesty will not suspect.
BBC NEWS | Africa | Peacekeeping head in Darfur plea [/quote]
A great point on the “OCD” - and yet, how do the crimes of Darfur square with the tired, worn out yarn that Islamism wouldn’t occur but for American foreign policy?
And to dovetail one more time on Doc’s point - what exactly did the African Christians and animists do to deserve the “blowback” of being slaughtered by Islamists?
I am glad Doc re-raises the issue - it has been raised and ignored before, many times. If Marxist-driven “blowback” turns a bunch of otherwise, peaceful “victims” into murderous monsters against their will, what horrible crimes did African Christians, animists, and non-Arab Muslims do to trigger “blowback’s” revenge in Darfur?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What about liberty to have an abortion?
Where do one persons liberties stop and anothers begin?
I agree that people have a right not to be murdered/aborted. I am not sure where to draw the line after that.
Do “potential” people have a right not to be prevented? Is birth control immoral? How about abstinence? Do potential children have rights to demand that you impregnate your wife whenever possible? The end result from not conceiving/preventing conception is the same as interrupting a pregnancy: someone doesn’t get a shot at life.
[/quote]
That’s a hell of a way of looking at it… I never thought about it like that.
Good post Pookie.
And being the pro-death kind of guy I am, I’m all about keeping abortion legal. To do otherwise would be horrendous.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And to dovetail one more time on Doc’s point - what exactly did the African Christians and animists do to deserve the “blowback” of being slaughtered by Islamists?
I am glad Doc re-raises the issue - it has been raised and ignored before, many times. If Marxist-driven “blowback” turns a bunch of otherwise, peaceful “victims” into murderous monsters against their will, what horrible crimes did African Christians, animists, and non-Arab Muslims do to trigger “blowback’s” revenge in Darfur?
[/quote]
Of course this is a thread hijack, but everything this Lixy posts is a hijack and insult to reason.
I come here for education and entertainment. Sometimes enlightenment. What detracts is dishonesty and lies–by the ConspiraTrolls, racists, and the one-note posters. If there is no honesty…no respect and no regard.
Now, because Lixy is this self-described paragon of virtue, I would really like to see where he/she/it has actually done something to correct injustice. Say, Darfur:
Even a Hollywood producer–of all people–has a stand to take.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And to dovetail one more time on Doc’s point - what exactly did the African Christians and animists do to deserve the “blowback” of being slaughtered by Islamists?
I am glad Doc re-raises the issue - it has been raised and ignored before, many times. If Marxist-driven “blowback” turns a bunch of otherwise, peaceful “victims” into murderous monsters against their will, what horrible crimes did African Christians, animists, and non-Arab Muslims do to trigger “blowback’s” revenge in Darfur?
[/quote]
I for one don’t believe every crime carried out in the name of Islam is a result of blowback. I believe blowback is relevant when we back extremely unpopular dictators or choose to become involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with our own national security. It’s simple, really. If we insert ourselves into a conflict, we become a target for one or more sides, by choice. Blowback isn’t so much a justification, or an excuse for terrorism as it is a realistic look at unintended consequences.
And really, I don’t understand the controversy that surrounds “blowback.” If you choose to intervene in foreign affairs, you’re going to become a target for people who don’t want your intervention. That’s not controversial. The issue should be if the intervention is ABSOLUTELY being carried out in defense of our own nation, or on behalf of some other nation. If so, blowback be damned, because by definition we must intervene for own safety. If not, why become a target in some foreign conflict?
Now, as far as Darfur is concerned? I don’t see how our security is at risk. The region is going to have find peace on it’s own, if it ever can.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
And to dovetail one more time on Doc’s point - what exactly did the African Christians and animists do to deserve the “blowback” of being slaughtered by Islamists?
I am glad Doc re-raises the issue - it has been raised and ignored before, many times. If Marxist-driven “blowback” turns a bunch of otherwise, peaceful “victims” into murderous monsters against their will, what horrible crimes did African Christians, animists, and non-Arab Muslims do to trigger “blowback’s” revenge in Darfur?
I for one don’t believe every crime carried out in the name of Islam is a result of blowback. I believe blowback is relevant when we back extremely unpopular dictators or choose to become involved in conflicts that have nothing to do with our own national security. It’s simple, really. If we insert ourselves into a conflict, we become a target for one or more sides, by choice. Blowback isn’t so much a justification, or an excuse for terrorism as it is a realistic look at unintended consequences.
And really, I don’t understand the controversy that surrounds “blowback.” If you choose to intervene in foreign affairs, you’re going to become a target for people who don’t want your intervention. That’s not controversial. The issue should be if the intervention is ABSOLUTELY being carried out in defense of our own nation, or on behalf of some other nation. If so, blowback be damned, because by definition we must intervene for own safety. If not, why become a target in some foreign conflict?
Now, as far as Darfur is concerned? I don’t see how our security is at risk. The region is going to have find peace on it’s own, if it ever can.[/quote]
Agreed.
To bring this thread back, I notice 2 things
- The word, genocide; it has been used by Bush, and that has consequences according to US law. That law will not be invoked.
- The candidates: perhaps some of them have used the word, but no one advertises a policy, other than some tsktsking.
If we have no leverage with China in Sudan, or with Russia in “Kosovo,” we in the US should admit to impotence, and see where the consequences fall.
Is it then left to no one–and here I mean not one major nation–to have both an ethical stand and an empowered position?
[quote]pat wrote:
I am going to run on the “Fuck the Children” ticket.[/quote]
So I’m guessing that your main constituents are Catholic priests and Michael Jackson?
[quote]pookie wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
What about liberty to have an abortion?
Where do one persons liberties stop and anothers begin?
I agree that people have a right not to be murdered/aborted. I am not sure where to draw the line after that.
Do “potential” people have a right not to be prevented? Is birth control immoral? How about abstinence? Do potential children have rights to demand that you impregnate your wife whenever possible? The end result from not conceiving/preventing conception is the same as interrupting a pregnancy: someone doesn’t get a shot at life.
When does someone become “people” and receive the full and natural rights we think are owed to every human?
[/quote]
Potential people have no rights. Of course, there is no such thing as a potential person. “It” either is or is not a person. The immorality or morality of birth control is not a factor as birth control and the taking of a human life are clearly not the same things.
[quote]pat wrote:
Potential people have no rights. Of course, there is no such thing as a potential person. “It” either is or is not a person. The immorality or morality of birth control is not a factor as birth control and the taking of a human life are clearly not the same things.
[/quote]
So I assume you believe that abortion doctors should get near life sentences for murder II? And the mothers who get illegal abortions, or take illegal morning after pills, I assume they’ll be getting >40 years for premeditated murder yes?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
Potential people have no rights. Of course, there is no such thing as a potential person. “It” either is or is not a person. The immorality or morality of birth control is not a factor as birth control and the taking of a human life are clearly not the same things.
So I assume you believe that abortion doctors should get near life sentences for murder II? And the mothers who get illegal abortions, or take illegal morning after pills, I assume they’ll be getting >40 years for premeditated murder yes?
[/quote]
Actually the doctors know exactly what they are doing so I’d give them murder I, before the mothers who could be duped, fooled or just flat uneducated about what they are doing.
My contention is that abortion is the taking of a human life. A willful act of taking a human life is constituted as murder. So yes, the charges should be the same.
To me cutting up and sucking out, piece by piece, a baby out of a mother’s womb is the same as somebody walking up to you with a .44 Magnum and blowing your head off.
You have to ask yourself, what constitutes the definition of what a human being is. Then see if those traits do not apply to a human fetus. What makes a person a person?
[quote]pat wrote:
To me cutting up and sucking out, piece by piece, a baby out of a mother’s womb is the same as somebody walking up to you with a .44 Magnum and blowing your head off. [/quote]
So you’re mad that women demand the right to get rid of what they consider parasites leeching off their hard earned nutrients and possibly defacing their figure, but are complacent when it comes to wars of aggression that kill countless innocents?
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
To me cutting up and sucking out, piece by piece, a baby out of a mother’s womb is the same as somebody walking up to you with a .44 Magnum and blowing your head off.
So you’re mad that women demand the right to get rid of what they consider parasites leeching off their hard earned nutrients and possibly defacing their figure, but are complacent when it comes to wars of aggression that kill countless innocents?[/quote]
Babies are not parasites. You are a parasite.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
To me cutting up and sucking out, piece by piece, a baby out of a mother’s womb is the same as somebody walking up to you with a .44 Magnum and blowing your head off.
So you’re mad that women demand the right to get rid of what they consider parasites leeching off their hard earned nutrients and possibly defacing their figure, but are complacent when it comes to wars of aggression that kill countless innocents?
Babies are not parasites. [/quote]
Read closer smarty pants. I wrote “what they consider parasites”.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
pat wrote:
To me cutting up and sucking out, piece by piece, a baby out of a mother’s womb is the same as somebody walking up to you with a .44 Magnum and blowing your head off.
So you’re mad that women demand the right to get rid of what they consider parasites leeching off their hard earned nutrients and possibly defacing their figure, but are complacent when it comes to wars of aggression that kill countless innocents?
Babies are not parasites. You are a parasite.[/quote]
No, Zap, a parasite, while incapable of life indepedent of its suffering host, may have nevertheless a functioning nervous system. The latter is not true of Lixy.
By the way, do you think Lixy is helping any of today’s victims of Arab Muslim-on-Muslim aggression in Darfur?
I didn’t see his name listed.
[quote]pat wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
pat wrote:
Potential people have no rights. Of course, there is no such thing as a potential person. “It” either is or is not a person. The immorality or morality of birth control is not a factor as birth control and the taking of a human life are clearly not the same things.
So I assume you believe that abortion doctors should get near life sentences for murder II? And the mothers who get illegal abortions, or take illegal morning after pills, I assume they’ll be getting >40 years for premeditated murder yes?
Actually the doctors know exactly what they are doing so I’d give them murder I, before the mothers who could be duped, fooled or just flat uneducated about what they are doing.
My contention is that abortion is the taking of a human life. A willful act of taking a human life is constituted as murder. So yes, the charges should be the same.
To me cutting up and sucking out, piece by piece, a baby out of a mother’s womb is the same as somebody walking up to you with a .44 Magnum and blowing your head off.
You have to ask yourself, what constitutes the definition of what a human being is. Then see if those traits do not apply to a human fetus. What makes a person a person?[/quote]
So…Pat. It has to be asked. What of the ‘murdering’ mothers to be who have been raped and saddled with the seed of their assailant? Mommy to be should carry that baby full term and then give it up for adoption I suppose? I don’t suppose you’ll ever know the personal ramifications of such a situation. Do you think the government should force this woman to carry the child full term? I guess hey why not…why stop with just the one victimization that occurred when she had no choice in conception. Personal liberties indeed.