[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I reject the moniker that has been applied and is widely used. “Partial birth” implies that the fetus is in between being born and not being born. If the fetus is still inside the mother’s womb – IT’S NOT FREAKING BORN YET! End of story.
[/quote]
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html
Reject the moniker all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that it is a fairly accurate description. It’s a horror.
doogie:
What a horrible procedure!
[quote]Vegita wrote:
The bigger concern is why JFK wanted to allow partial birth abortions to continue. Can we all agree that this practice was not something that should be allowed? If you want an abortion there is plent of time to decide that before 3 months or however long it is.
[/quote]
The fight against partial birth abortion is typically a fight, like many other issues, against the domino effect. Allowing the smallest concession on abortion is one step towards banning abortion. Same with school vouchers, private accounts for SS, etc…
However, Kerry has actually claimed that he supports the partial birth abortion ban. He has claimed that the only reason he voted against the ban is because it has no provision for exemption when the women requesting the abortion is in life threatening need (the same reason, I believe, a court found the ban unconstitutional. There must always be a clause for life-threatening situations). In other words, given the current ban, if a woman came into a hospital in a life threatened state and an abortion was necessary to save her life, under the wording of the current ban the doctors would have to stand by and watch the women die (along with the fetus, if you consider that to be “alive”).
If all that stands as true, in my mind that should definitely ease your concern. It’s amazing to me that at this point in the race people still don’t understand a candidate’s position on such a major issue, even though it’s stated clearly and it is of “concern” to the person in question. Kinda like people that have bought the claim that Bush “outsourced our military and let Bin Laden get away”, even though Bush has provided a clear and acceptable justification for the military strategy at that time.
I ought to apologize to this thread for two reasons:
Allowing the direction of conversation be turned toward abortion – not its original intent.
I was quite simply wrong in my definition of partial birth abortions. I misunderstood completely, and a simple web search would have saved me this embarassment. I was told, or heard around the way, that partial birth abortion referred to any abortion that took place in the third tri-mester. I didn’t know it referred to an actual and specific procedure (D and X).
Seems though, that these abortions make up less than 1% of all abortions. Why, I wonder, must such a horrible procedure be used to accomplish the ends?
So yes, Vegita, the procedure does seem somewhat brutal, though I don’t know more and shouldn’t opine further.
Sorry again.
(this after posting my Wittgenstein quote!)
If something is legal, then those who believe it is an acceptable practice can partake, and those who believe it is immoral can avoid.
If something is illegal, then those who believe it is an accptable practice are forced to avoid, and those who believe it is immoral can still avoid.
Making something legal and available does not force a belief system or point of view down anybody’s throat.
Making something illegal and unavailable forces a belief system and point of view down everybody’s throat.
Don’t like what’s on TV? Change the channel. Use the V-Chip.
Don’t like what somebody is saying? Don’t listen. Don’t buy their book.
Don’t like what somebody is doing in their bedroom? Stop peeping in through their blinds.
If you want to play football at school you sign up and practice after school. If you want to pray, why not sign up and practice before school.
So cocaine use and drunk driving should be made legal because we can all not do them if we feel they are immoral? Possibly the worst argument I have heard on this topic. Sorry but it’s true.
I have two problems with partial birth and late abortions. I disagree that an abortion should be allowed if the fetus would be able to survive or at least have a chance at survival if the abortion did not take place. And no I don’t think the death of a living being is better than a life of what you call poverty, they still have plenty of chances to be happy and do great things. I do not think parents own thier children, the children own themselves. It is a parents duty to be the childs steward untill it can handle things on it’s own, this is the way it works in nature we just have a more complicated system. It is a sad system when adults can make bad decisions and then fix them by killing another living thing. The root of the problem is not how we deal with a baby once a mother is pregnant and cant deal with having the baby. The root of the problem is how do we get mothers to stop getting pregnant if they don’t want children. And really it’s not that hard to have save sex, it is actually very cheap and easy, people are just lazy and uneducated about it.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[quote]John K wrote:
If something is legal, then those who believe it is an acceptable practice can partake, and those who believe it is immoral can avoid.
If something is illegal, then those who believe it is an accptable practice are forced to avoid, and those who believe it is immoral can still avoid.
Making something legal and available does not force a belief system or point of view down anybody’s throat.
Making something illegal and unavailable forces a belief system and point of view down everybody’s throat.
Don’t like what’s on TV? Change the channel. Use the V-Chip.
Don’t like what somebody is saying? Don’t listen. Don’t buy their book.
Don’t like what somebody is doing in their bedroom? Stop peeping in through their blinds.
If you want to play football at school you sign up and practice after school. If you want to pray, why not sign up and practice before school.[/quote]
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So cocaine use and drunk driving should be made legal because we can all not do them if we feel they are immoral? Possibly the worst argument I have heard on this topic. Sorry but it’s true.[/quote]
Vegita how many people have died from watching an offensive TV show? Buying a book? People other than them partaking in consensual activites? Now what about others driving drunk… I think the arguement is if it doesnt hurt others why ban it? Driving drunk does. And I won’t get into drug use no need to bring the thread further off topic.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
So cocaine use and drunk driving should be made legal because we can all not do them if we feel they are immoral? Possibly the worst argument I have heard on this topic. Sorry but it’s true.
[/quote]
No, Vegita, I think you’re mistaken. There is a notion of where the line must be drawn, and I’d be interested to see if John K agrees with me: when your actions begin to infringe on the rights of others, your choices/actions must be restricted.
Drunk driving, your example, provides an instance where it is easy to see the line must be drawn. One can drink all they wish, but if they then decide to drive they are threatening the well being of others. You need to go much further down the causal line in order to reach the point where someone smoking pot affects the lives of others, or someone having an abortion affects the lives of others, etc.
Now, I don’t know about cocaine – you should ask Laura B how it affected her life or if GeeDub’s actions ever threatened anyone…j/k
I suppose that if the 70 million or so killed by abortion since 1973 could talk they would tell you that it effected their lives.
If life were so precious we’d all be vegetarians and there would be no war.
[quote]vroom wrote:
If life were so precious we’d all be vegetarians and there would be no war.[/quote]
Or death penalty.
Great point Vroom!
I like your nihilistic style Vroom!
Have you seen I Heart Huckabees yet?
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Roy:
Please cite one instance where President Bush said that “God works through him.”
Also, cite an instance where you know that President Bush was influenced by the religious right.
From the USA Today: “Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.”
He also reportedly told the Amish that “God speaks through me.”
From some close to Bush: “I think President Bush is God?s man at this hour,” a top White House aide told a religious publication not long ago. Ralph Reed, the former director of the Christian Coalition who now chairs the G.O.P. in Georgia, says his fellow evangelicals believe God selected the President because “He knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way.”
ZEB, you can also check out this article: Bush says God chose him to lead his nation | World news | The Guardian
It’s called “Bush says God Chose him to Lead this Nation.” In this article, you’ll find this quote: “Bush said to James Robinson: ‘I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can’t explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen… I know it won’t be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.’”
What you have done is sterotyped the President because of his religious beliefs. It’s simple bigotry! No different than stating that because someone is of African American decent he will act in a certain way. That’s wrong thinking!
A little toleration for someone of opposing belif is what is needed from the left. The same way you tolerate other groups which you have stated that you do not agree with (who happen to be on the left).
I think Christians, whatever position that they hold are entitled to the same tolerance offered up to other groups.
Let us not forget this little gem:
Sept. 16, in a rare press conference, Bush said, “This is a new kind of – a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while.”
You can also consider this, ZEB, from the article I’ve quoted before, “Without a doubt”:
on Feb. 1, 2002, Jim Wallis of the Sojourners stood in the Roosevelt Room for the introduction of Jim Towey as head of the president’s faith-based and community initiative. John DiIulio, the original head, had left the job feeling that the initiative was not about ‘‘compassionate conservatism,’’ as originally promised, but rather a political giveaway to the Christian right, a way to consolidate and energize that part of the base.
Moments after the ceremony, Bush saw Wallis. He bounded over and grabbed the cheeks of his face, one in each hand, and squeezed. ‘‘Jim, how ya doin’, how ya doin’!‘’ he exclaimed. Wallis was taken aback. Bush excitedly said that his massage therapist had given him Wallis’s book, ‘‘Faith Works.’’ His joy at seeing Wallis, as Wallis and others remember it, was palpable – a president, wrestling with faith and its role at a time of peril, seeing that rare bird: an independent counselor. Wallis recalls telling Bush he was doing fine, ‘’‘but in the State of the Union address a few days before, you said that unless we devote all our energies, our focus, our resources on this war on terrorism, we’re going to lose.’ I said, ‘Mr. President, if we don’t devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we’ll lose the war on terrorism.’‘’
Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy.
‘‘No, Mr. President,’’ Wallis says he told Bush, ‘‘We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we’ll never defeat the threat of terrorism.’’
Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.
‘‘When I was first with Bush in Austin, what I saw was a self-help Methodist, very open, seeking,’’ Wallis says now. ‘‘What I started to see at this point was the man that would emerge over the next year – a messianic American Calvinist. He doesn’t want to hear from anyone who doubts him.’’
Bush believes abortion is wrong and that belief is rooted in religion, not reason.
Bush is opposed to stem-cell research because it is in line with a certain sort of Christian beliefs. He maintains this belief at the expense of tremendous potential progress in health and science in general.
[/quote]
ZEB, this, especially the above portion is a direct response to your direct questions – what do you think?
RSU:
I think that Wallis is entitled to his opinion. I further think that I would be more comfortable with someone in the White House who knows where he stands, rather than flip-flopping John Kerry.
I Also think that about 90% of America’s population believe in God and President Bush will not be harmed by his belief.
Should Kerry be attacked for his lack of belief? He is directly opposed to various Catholic doctrines.
Honestly, outside the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, is mainstream American seriously concerned about the fact that Bush prays on every big decision he makes?
I suspect the answer is no.
Most people - with the exception of the crop of flaky nihilists - respect a person that has a strong faith.
As for Bush being an instrument of God, I don’t put much credence in a Guardian editorial about an issue as weighty as this.
Oh, and this nugget:
“Bush is opposed to stem-cell research because it is in line with a certain sort of Christian beliefs. He maintains this belief at the expense of tremendous potential progress in health and science in general.”
More brainless oversimplification. The issue is much more complex than that. We could probably make ‘tremendous potential progress in health and science’ if we allowed medical experimentation on prisoners, but that little problem of ethics gets in the way.
Same with stem-cell research. It’s a fair issue to debate, but I’m tired of the issue being moronized.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Should Kerry be attacked for his lack of belief? He is directly opposed to various Catholic doctrines.[/quote]
Because he doesn’t blindly adhere to a doctrine doesn’t lessen the quality of his belief.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Honestly, outside the Tin Foil Hat Brigade, is mainstream American seriously concerned about the fact that Bush prays on every big decision he makes?
I suspect the answer is no.
Most people - with the exception of the crop of flaky nihilists - respect a person that has a strong faith. [/quote]
Are you kidding? You think its okay for someone to make decisions about world policy, war, and the lives that war will cost, based on prayer? I’d prefer him to ask tough questions, be asked tough questions, and examine facts and view them in light of his knowledge…but this is out of the question for Bush – as being “certain” is better than being right, and what knowledge is there to fall back on?
[quote]
Oh, and this nugget:
“Bush is opposed to stem-cell research because it is in line with a certain sort of Christian beliefs. He maintains this belief at the expense of tremendous potential progress in health and science in general.”
More brainless oversimplification. The issue is much more complex than that. We could probably make ‘tremendous potential progress in health and science’ if we allowed medical experimentation on prisoners, but that little problem of ethics gets in the way.
Same with stem-cell research. It’s a fair issue to debate, but I’m tired of the issue being moronized.[/quote]
You should get up and find your rocker, because you seem to have fallen off of it…you’ve presented some sort of slippery slope argument, and the slope to which you seem to refer is about 90 degrees steep and clearly coated in KY!
From a 1998 memo Pat Robertson distributed to the Iowa Republican County Caucus: “How to Participate in a Political Party”
[b]Rule the world for God.
Give the impression that you are there to work for the party, not push an ideology.
Hide your strength.
Don’t flaunt your Christianity.
Christians need to take leadership positions. Party officers control political parties and so it is very important that mature Christians have a majority of leadership positions whenever possible, God willing. [/b]
Pat Robertson also said “With the apathy that exists today, a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree.”
Robertson said to the Denver Post in 1992 “We want…as soon as possible to see a majority of the Republican Party in the hands of pro-family Christians…”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, the Reublican party is heading for a meltdown because of the way that Fundamentalist Christians have hijacked the party. Traditional conservatives are on the verge of revolt (which some predict a Bush victory will spark).
Jimmy Carter was a Christian. He was even a Sunday School teacher. This issue has nothing to do with the president’s personal religious beliefs, it has to do with the way the religious right is cornering political power in this country, and their STATED GOAL of making the Church the cornerstone of society, and enacting Biblical Law. This is not an ‘instant revolution’ but a slippery slope we are on RIGHT NOW.
I read Bandgeek’s “Chalcedon” website and it basically says everything that TheocracyWatch is warning the public about. These are some choice quotes:
[quote]We believe in regeneration , not in revolution. Men are not changed fundamentally by politics, but by the power of God. Men’s hearts are changed by regeneration (Jn. 3:3). They are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Col. 1:13). From that point, they progressively work to reorient their lives and every sphere they touch in terms of God’s holy, infallible Word. Long-term, pervasive social change is the result of extensive regeneration and obedience by the people of God. This means, of course, that there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians.
We do encourage Christian political involvement, but not for the reason that many people suppose. In fact, we believe it is important for Christians to get involved in politics because we do not believe politics is too important. The great problem with modern politics is that it is used as an instrument of social change. We at Chalcedon passionately oppose this. The role of the state is in essence to defend and protect, in the words of the early American Republic, life, liberty, and property. It is to reward the externally obedient by protecting them from the externally disobedient (Rom. 13:1-7). Its role is not to make men virtuous; we have a name for civil governments that attempt to create a virtuous society: totalitarian. Biblically, the role of the state is to suppress external evil: murder, theft, rape, and so forth. Its role is not to redistribute wealth, furnish medical care, or educate its citizens’ children.
Further, Biblical civil law is designed for a covenanted society, just as Biblical ecclesiastical and familial law are: Paul’s epistles, for example, are written to Christian churches, not to Satanic synagogues. Biblical law governing the family is designed for Christian families. Likewise, Biblical civil law is created for a covenanted, Christian society. This is why God dictated His legislation (including civic legislation) to ancient Israel after He had entered into covenant with her (Ex. 19). Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them.
We do believe that the state one day will be Christian, but this no way implies that the role of the state is to Christianize its citizens. The Christian state is highly decentralized (localized). Our objective, therefore, in supporting Christian political involvement is to scale down the massive state in Western democracies, reducing it to its Biblical limits. We do not believe in political salvation of any kind.
God blesses, nourishes, and honors the Royal Race of the Redeemed, all of those of whatever physical race that have placed their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, and God curses the race of the First Adam, all of those who live in unbelief, rebellion, and works-based righteousness (Rom. 5:12-21)[/quote]
Ahem, the folks at Chalcedon want to convert everyone in America to Christianity. “Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them.”
[quote]ZEB said
Please cite one instance where President Bush said that “God Roy: works through him”[/quote]
In Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack”, (recommended on the White House website) based on taped conversations with the President, Bush describes himself as a “messenger” of God who is doing “the Lord’s will.”
As far as the President’s fundamentalist faith affecting what is really a radical (not conservative) political aganda, one easy example is Bush’s lack of interest in environmental issues. MANY Christian Fundamentalists think environmentalism is related to Paganism, which really twists their panties. And also, they believe that God gave mankind “dominion” over the earth and everything on earth. Some fundamentalists interpret to mean that man is free milk the earth’s natural resources until they are gone, because everything was put here on earth for man to use up at his discretion.
Regarding school prayer, ANY KID IS FREE TO PRAY whenever he or she wants to. However setting aside time for that and making everyone participate (or stop what they’re doing) during the school day is offensive. If your kid wants to pray, nobody is stopping him. But don’t make MY kid pray, or make him sit there watching YOUR kid pray. Talk about FORCING your beliefs on someone! The people who want “group prayer” in school are a good example of that.
Finally a few people have referred to me as an atheist, even after I described myself as AGNOSTIC. If you don’t know what that means then you probably have no business posting on a religion thread.
Agnostic= One who is ignorant about the central question of human existence.
That is pretty uncharitable Mr Chen.
Nobody really knows, that is why it is called faith. However, given the number of religions on the planet, it is extreme hubris to assume yours it the right one.
Generally, the only reason people are in the religion they believe is because they were born into it. That’s hardly a robust selection criteria.
There are sects of most religions that seek to promote the growth of their religion.
It has resulted in many wars with the uncivilized savages of the world (people who believe differently) and is something that should indeed be very shameful to those that proclaim “life is precious”.
Religion is something that is responsible for more wrong and repression than just about anything else on the planet. How could something that is supposed to be so right be so wrong?
I cannot fathom that any existing God would allow it’s words to be manipulated by man for such large harm on other men and on the environment in general.
There is right and there is wrong. It does not take a religion to know that. I judge religions misused by mankind to justify incredible evil and injustices.
I guess you can say I currently have a one man religion. It doesn’t take a church full of hypocrites for me to seek advice or determine appropriate behavior. I can do that privately when I feel the need. I can also read ancient wisdom if I feel the need.
Anyone out there that has the guts to make up their own mind, not have it made for them at birth, no matter what they individually choose, I commend you for thinking and deciding on your own.
It is a lot more work to think for yourself, but it frees you to adapt to the changing world.