They just don’t get it November 15, 2008
Posted by downwithabsolutes in Uncategorized.trackback
Sen. Jim Demint (R-SC) has come out swinging against John McCain. Why, you ask? He’s just not conservative enough!
When will these fucking fire and brimstone dinosaurs learn?
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
downwithabsolutes
Dominique
Mike Matthews
represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government.
Are these bad things?
McCain ran a campaign devoid of these things, in that regard DeMint is correct.
The religious-based values, yes.
Dear God, Mike, let go of your animosity for religion. If someone believes in honesty, integrity, honor and good will towards others and they happen to believe in and worship God, is that a bad thing?
Dominique,
What aren’t you getting? I have NO problem with religion. It’s the context of DeMint’s comments. Have you gone over to the fire and brimstone side yet? DeMint is the breed of Republicans that wants to control women’s reproductive rights, banish the scary homosexuals, and blame all of America’s ills on illegal immigrants. That’s what I’m saying. The Republicans need to GET AWAY from those types. If you aren’t sure of what I’m saying, consider this post a compliment of how John McCain ran his campaign in not EXPLICITLY pandering to those types of Republicans.
DeMint was correct in his assessment. McCain while I would say is a decent person, did not espouse conservative principles that had been a feature of the modern day Republican (pre 1999). Since that time we have witnessed more of a quasi-Conservative in the Republican Party. This probably has confused the public with the actual distinction between the parties. It does really appear to be more and more blurred as each day passes
Sen. DeMint is right on the money. The dem who wants us to get off the religious values, anti-homosexuality and blaming all our problems on illegal immigrants is making up stuff to make all Republicans appear to be bigots.
This guy has no understanding of morality and the rule of law. Using dem talking points to brand all Republicans is very foolish. They all sound alike, no matter where they are from, so they must be wired to the DNC.
Conservatives, whether they be dems or Repubs have the same principles and va lues, we just differ on the role of government, and even that is not very different. That’s where Reagan Democrats come from.
Back to basics boys and girls.
Sorry, Mike. I didn’t read the link (I’m a little burned out on the hand wringing, to be honest). While I think you may be a little overly sensitive to the whole religion thing, I agree that the only way the GOP can survive is to free itself from the grip of the religious right. The Dems freed themselves of their fringe lunatics (at least in terms of policy) and they’ve done well over the past two election cycles as a result.
How good to see someone shout conservative principles now that all is lost. Where the hell have the conservatives been for the past 8 years
“DeMint is the breed of Republicans that wants to control women’s reproductive rights, banish the scary homosexuals, and blame all of America’s ills on illegal immigrants.”
Now that’s some hardcore religious point-of-view being espoused by Mike.
Since when is allowing people to murder the unborn a good thing? “Reproductive rights” my eye. Convince me an unborn child is the equivalent of a kidney, and I might believe this rhetoric.
Trying to pretend that you ‘have no religion’ is impossible. Everyone has a point-of-view that determines their actions. Otherwise, why are ‘reproductive rights’ a good thing?
“Banish the scary homosexuals” – who is it who is trying to ram things down other’s throats? Who is up in arms despite California’s Prop 8 passing with a huge majority? How can you say that you don’t believe anything? Obviously, you worship at the temple of liberalism. Conservatives don’t hate homosexuals, we just think their life choices are wrong. You just can’t be tolerant of OUR view.
Blame ills on illegal immigration? C’mon! No one is against immigrants – ALL of us are either immigrants or decendants of immigrants (unless you are a Native American). It’s just that they SHOULD WAIT THEIR TURN. My ancestors did. So did most others. Why should people from Mexico be allowed to cut in line? That’s the basic truth of the matter. We just need to be even handed and fair.
Boy, talk about people with a religious bent, Mike, you take the cake.
Republicans don’t hate black people, we just think their color is wrong. You just can’t be tolerant of OUR view
“Conservatives don’t hate homosexuals, we just think their life choices are wrong.”
Why on earth would anyone choose to be a homosexual? It’s not a choice anymore than being heterosexual is. I could also do without the description of abortion as ‘murdering’ an unborn child. It’s a cheap overdramatization that, other than riling up those who already agree with you, does nothing to further the cause of changing minds.
I have never met anyone who’s ambiguous about abortion. You’re either for it or against it. I am for it. In some cases, I wish it was mandatory. Regardless of where a person stands on the issue, it’s unlikely someone is going to change their mind – especially by using language that’s designed to incite anger.
“Banish the scary homosexuals” – who is it who is trying to ram things down other’s throats?
Pun intended?
“Banish the scary homosexuals” – who is it who is trying to ram things down other’s throats?”
“Pun intended?”
Either that, or an in-you-endo.
Just read a piece (News Journal web comment?) from a man who was raised in Spain. Which he described this way: ‘There isn’t anywhere more Catholic than Spain.’
He relayed the sad story of his mother having had several still births and spontaneous abortions. He said during this time that the still born/fetus’ were not permitted to be buried in ’sanctified’ church cementaries!
The writer continued to say: ‘They were treated much the way dead puppies & Kittens are.’ So much for the human life begins at conception dogma.
This type of devisive church dogma nonsense is designed to keep us squabbling with one another. Get over it people you have the power to do with your mind and body what your freewill tells you.
“Just read a piece (News Journal web comment?) from a man who was raised in Spain. Which he described this way: ‘There isn’t anywhere more Catholic than Spain.’
He relayed the sad story of his mother having had several still births and spontaneous abortions. He said during this time that the still born/fetus’ were not permitted to be buried in ’sanctified’ church cementaries!”
Yes, quoting an unnamed newspaper who quoted an unnamed Catholic who quotes his unnamed mother’
s story about an unnamed church graveyard somewhere in Spain.
That’s a convincing argument right there. Also BS.
Catholic doctrine would permit and even encourage, a stillborn fetus to be baptized, and therefore be buried in whatever kind of ground the family wanted.
“devisive church dogma nonsense”
Where is the tolerance by the pro-abortion camp? Again, a lot of people don’t think it’s nonsense, and they have a very good reason for not thinking so. “Thou shalt not Kill.”
40 million babies aborted since the ’70’s has a big societal impact-insufficient births…need for labor, so we have this immigration problem. Lack of future workers to pay into Social Security. There is more than just the religious component.
It’s not just church dogma nonsense. And, assuming that the story you relate is true, why are you criticizing the unnamed priest for treating stillborn babies like puppies? Isn’t that what you are advocating anyway? IF you were logically consistent, you would be applauding the priest!
Did you seriously just blame the illegal immigration problem on abortion? That’s the most ridiculous stretch I’ve ever heard. There’s not a lack of labor; there’s a lack of people willing to work for $6/hour without benefits.
Geez, if you’re going to look at the potential of the 40 million babies aborted since the ’70’s, I’d argue that the crime rate would probably be significantly higher now since most of those children would likely have been born into poverty.
Susan
“This type of devisive church dogma nonsense is designed to keep us squabbling with one another..”
Yes while they run off with the loot quietly and un notices
You are so right.
“I’d argue that the crime rate would probably be significantly higher now since most of those children would likely have been born into poverty.”
You wouldn’t be the first one to argue that…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bennett#Radio_show_abortion_comment
“I’d argue that the crime rate would probably be significantly higher now since most of those children would likely have been born into poverty.”
What if they had been given up for adoption? They might have been adopted by well to do families and sent to the best schools. But we will never know that because their lives were disposed of for someone else’s convenience.
When you get rid of the code words, ie “reproductive rights” blah blah blah, that’s what it boils down to.. the disposal of one human life for the convenience of another person. Since the 70’s it’s the unborn, now in Oregon it’s the elderly and the sick. Tomorrow, who? The mentally challenged, amputeees, learning disabled, smokers, Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, atheists?
Where are we going to draw the line at when it is ok to kill someone and when it is not? I argue that conception is as good a place as any.
1. It is common to everyone, regardless of race, sex, disability or whatever, and therefore it is inherently non-discriminatory.
2. It is not arbitrary; it is a biologically distinct event that needs no further defintion or interpretation. Legal definitions of what constitutes life that must be protected begins are arbitrary, chosen by legislators or judges that have little or no medical or scientific training.
3. Mothers (and fathers) who are incapable of supporting the baby can give them for adoption. Parents who voluntarily adopt, it seems, would be especially good parents and poverty is not an issue because of the screening of adoptive parents that goes on.
I also think it is a faulty assumption that only impoverished women are having abortions. I think there are probably quite a few who are making a lot of money and don’t want to mess up their career by having a baby. So it is more convenient to have the abortion.
Wow. Why on earth would Bennett make it about race? I don’t know the exact statistics, but there are more white women having abortions than black women. Poverty breeds crime and poverty spans across racial lines.
‘Mothers (and fathers) who are incapable of supporting the baby can give them for adoption.’
Spoken like a true man. Nothing like reducing a woman to a human incubator. You have no idea what it means to carry a pregnancy to term and hand the child over to someone once it’s born just as I have no idea what it means for a man to pass a kidney stone. I hear it’s pretty agonizing, tho, so I certainly wouldn’t suggest or insist that a man be forced to endure it if there was a way to prevent the stones from developing very early on.
You also conveniently ignore the fact that most of the women having abortions are single and most of those likely have absolutely no support from the father. It’s not about convenience, it’s about survival. Thanks, tho, for painting women as nothing more than shallow and selfish as if the decision to have an abortion is on par with the decision to drive to the store as opposed to walking.
I also absolutely LOVE how you imply that adoption is a viable answer to the problem while obviously ignoring our broken foster care system. Turns out black babies don’t get adopted quite as easily as white babies. Of course, that might change if the religious zealots in this country would stay out of the way when perfectly loving gay couples want to adopt.
Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not judging anyone’s belief in whichever god they choose to worship. I am, however, asking that you at least be consistent in your beliefs. If you’re truly pro-life, you should also be against war and the death penalty. If you truly believe that abortion should be replaced by adoption, you should also be focused on those children being placed in loving homes regardless of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents. At the very least, you should probably take in a foster child or two since their mothers did what you insist all women should do. Imagine what a difference it would make if each person who marches on Washington every January would take in two foster children. Of course, that’s not the way it works, is it? So-called pro-lifers are primarily focused on the fetus. Once the baby leaves the womb, pro-lifers fly their ‘mission accomplished’ flag and move on. After all, they’re pro-life, not pro-quality-of-life, right?
Dom – post #21 = slam dunk. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Wow. Why on earth would Bennett make it about race? I don’t know the exact statistics, but there are more white women having abortions than black women.
Simple. Proportionately, there are many more black women in poverty than white.
“Banish the scary homosexuals” – who is it who is trying to ram things down other’s throats?
Yeah. Sorry that you have to suffer through treating other people like something more than a second-class citizen.
Who is up in arms despite California’s Prop 8 passing with a huge majority?
52-48 is pretty far from a ‘huge majority’. And this is a classic case of 5 wolves and 4 sheep voting on what to have for dinner. That’s why it’s unfair. It singles out a minority group that can’t at all help that they are the way they are and aren’t hurting anybody in the process.
How can you say that you don’t believe anything? Obviously, you worship at the temple of liberalism.
True. But then, politicos tend to use reason and the Bible, well, doesn’t.
Conservatives don’t hate homosexuals, we just think their life choices are wrong. You just can’t be tolerant of OUR view.
Yeah. So sorry that I’m intolerant of your intolerance. I’m bigoted towards bigots. How terrible.
“Yeah. So sorry that I’m intolerant of your intolerance. I’m bigoted towards bigots. How terrible.”
Now again, it is time to LAUGH.
Fight Fire with Fire… Wooo Hoooo.
I always like hearing that someone’s actions do not affect others.
I call Bullshit.
The Blood supply is still a zero sum game. There is still only so much blood available. And the synthetic stuff is not ready yet.
I witnessed the beginnings of the AIDS epidemic. 1980’s. I read the surprise that Hemophiliacs were coming down with the symptoms, and died. Indiscriminate people with the suspect problems, and some with confirmed diagnosis, donated blood, and there was no test to determine HIV active antibodies, to determine if the donated blood was safe.
[Lets not forget that for over a hundred years, medical science has recognized that blood, transfusions and vaccinations with mild forms of viruses, helps to prevent disease. Likewise, blood does spread diseases, ask the Mosquitoes in Panama, and the Fleas on your dog. ]
In the 1980’s, The parallel story was that unless the disease became more universal, the world would look at it as a limited threat. So there were efforts to spread the disease. And it worked. Innocent Hemophiliacs died. Where was the compassion?
Hepatitis, AIDS, IV-drug use and a few other reckless behaviors prevent people from donating blood, yet these people share in the need for whole blood and blood products. NO, I do not believe that there are behaviors that do not affect us all.
The Blood supply is my favorite analogy. It is not like the monetary system where the Government just loans to itself and prints more money.
I shudder to think that our TAX policies will soon be applied to Blood. Then No longer will I be able to say you can not take my blood. It will just be another matter of ‘Redistribution of assets’.
And for those who believe in the Miracles of Chemistry, please sign up as volunteer guinea pigs, and save the good stuff for the rest of us. OOPS, ‘Miracles’, I meant the ever evolutionary improvements of man’s conquest over the rules of Mother Nature.
.
Hey — wasn’t Prop. 8 merely — and yes, I mean merely — about not allowing gays to “marry?” Why not concentrate on civil unions? Americans as a whole favor allowing those for gays. Make sure all 14th Amendment protections are guaranteed. “Marriage” has been between a man and woman since time immemorial. Changing that definition is like redefining “gender” (as some people would like to do anyway!).
Dominique: “I agree that the only way the GOP can survive is to free itself from the grip of the religious right. The Dems freed themselves of their fringe lunatics (at least in terms of policy) and they’ve done well over the past two election cycles as a result.”
If the GOP frees itself from what you think is the “religious right,” they are finished. There is no other sizeable core constituency available to them.
And the Dems haven’t “freed themselves of their fringe lunatics.” They have put them in charge of Congress and now the White House.
You sound like a college professor or a member of McCain’s inept campaign staff.
Paul:
Homosexuality does not cause HIV. People other than gays get AIDS, through means other than blood transfusions. And the prerequisites for having AIDS as a gay are far different from the prerequisites for getting married as a gay.
Hube:
If you ask me, the government should remove itself from “marriage” entirely and only recognize civil unions. Separation of church and state is a two-way street.
MAt,
Go Back and read your History.
I did not say what caused AIDS. I said how it got spread.
And I have no clue to the meaning of your last sentence.
Mat: Get hitched in a church – married. Get hitched elsewhere, civil union. Ditch all tax breaks for any sort of union, right?
Where does that Establishment Clause infer that gov. has to stay out of marriage and/or civil unions, pray tell (pun intended)?
Hube:
I approach the separation of church and state more as an abstract value which I think should be upheld as a rule of thumb than I do a constitutional requirement. However, the Establishment Clause focuses on ‘establishments of religion’. If the issue with gay marriage is that it steps on the toes of the church (and indeed, if the definition of marriage requires that it take place under the church), then is it safe to assume that marriage is one of those establishments? And if not, then wherein lies the religious issue?
Paul:
I know what you said, and I wasn’t disputing it. My point is that the analogy doesn’t fit. To begin with, blood transfusions are much different from marriage (surely I don’t have to explain this one). As AIDS goes, my point is that it shouldn’t have any weight in the argument as, again, it’s not a gay disease. My point (which I’m pretty sure you were responding to) was that same-sex marriage and, indeed, homosexuality in and of itself does not, in any way, harm anybody else (no more so than heterosexuality at least). I suppose there’s a case to be made that by taking religious offense, people are being hurt, but then, there’s offense to be taken everywhere and the fact is that we don’t have a right not to be offended.
As for the last sentence, I was pointing out the differences in the scenarios we used. Referring to homosexuality (and, more specifically, same-sex marriage), in which the requirement is an attraction to the same sex, you’re not hurting anybody. The HIV argument stems more from sexual behavior, which is very much different from sexual preference.
I’m not completely sure of what point you were trying to make. I’m just making an educated guess on this one.
Mat: You miss the point.
The CDC reports that: “In the United States, HIV infection and AIDS have had a tremendous effect on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for 71% of all HIV infections among male adults and adolescents in 2005 (based on data from 33 states with long-term, confidential name-based HIV reporting), even though only about 5% to 7% of male adults and adolescents in the United States identify themselves as MSM.”
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/resources/
factsheets/msm.htm
When the government is not willing, it is appropriate for the public to take steps to oppose the normalization of — indeed a government stamp of approval for — conduct that creates a public health risk.
“It’s not about convenience, it’s about survival. Thanks, tho, for painting women as nothing more than shallow and selfish as if the decision to have an abortion is on par with the decision to drive to the store as opposed to walking.”
Hey Dominique:
I think snuffing out a human life because someone couldn’t “drive to the store” and spring $5 for a pack of condoms IS pretty shallow and selfish. If you know or think you might be sexually active, and you know you don’t want or can’t raise a child, take some measures to prevent it in the first place. What is so outrageous about that suggestion?
My point is that there are plenty of rational, non-religious arguments against abortion. Just because someone makes arguments opposed to it, doesn’t mean they are a bigot or a religious zealot.
Killing 40 million potential human beings in 35 years does have some societal impact. No one knows how those 40 mil would have lived their lives, so it is a lame argument just to assume they would all have been criminals. Low birth rates in Europe are to the point where the societies are not having enough children to replace those who die. Our whole social security system is based on having enough people working to pay in to support those who have retired. Our gross domestic product has pretty much increased since the nation’s founding. What happens when it begins to shrink because there are not enough people to continue to work to carry it on?
And back to the original point, Jim Demint. If he is what the people of SC want, they will keep electing him. They have the right to do that in this country, so far. It is no more appalling than the people of MA continuing to elect date-drowning Ted Kennedy.
I was considering “It singles out a minority group that can’t at all help that they are the way they are and aren’t hurting anybody in the process.”
I cringe when people tell me their behavior does not affect me.
1) I was watching the old lady that got mugged and her cross trampled, while a group that espoused ‘LOVE’ were consumed with hate. I suspect the old lady must not be part of a protected group Or a group that deserves compassion and understanding?
2) I was reacting to ‘intolerance VS intolerance’. fire VS fire. Interesting concept. Who decides who is right or wrong?
3) Aids was primarily a Gay disease in the early 1980’s. That is not My opinion, it is history. It is also the most devastating plague that was NEVER Quarantined. So much for fear of offending someone overcoming safe medical practice.
4) Aids later went hemophiliac and heterosexual, as the disease mutated. I Mean, as the disease went through the revered Darwinian progression of ’survival of the fittest’, even for viruses.
4) No Analogy is PERFECT!
5) My comments were a result of ‘no harm done’.
Not so much about Marriage vs civil unions. Your comment “The HIV argument stems more from sexual behavior, which is very much different from sexual preference. ” is not a separate issue. The sexual behavior is related to what occurs primarily in MSM.
[ Thanks to elHombre.]
The fear of disease, including but not restricted to AIDS, is not irrational. When the Blood Bank says they need Blood, and I read the list of precautions and issues that prevent donating, I reconsider the statement, ‘My actions do not interfere with others’.
Unintended consequences, are still consequences.
Sometimes, fatal.
We are all dependent on each other.
.
POST #30, I agree 100%.
.
‘I think snuffing out a human life because someone couldn’t “drive to the store” and spring $5 for a pack of condoms IS pretty shallow and selfish. If you know or think you might be sexually active, and you know you don’t want or can’t raise a child, take some measures to prevent it in the first place. What is so outrageous about that suggestion?’
Again with the incendiary language…’snuffing out a human life’? Really?
When you suggest that women are selfish and shallow for not buying condoms, you are putting 100% of the responsibility for avoiding an unwanted pregnancy on the woman. Do you really not see that?
When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the man essentially gets off scot-free while the woman is left with the emotional, mental and financial responsibility of either terminating the pregnancy or carrying it to term.
I suppose it’s pretty easy for someone who’s never missed a period to oversimplify the issue. That’s not to say you don’t have a right to your opinion. It’s just that your perspective is probably not quite as personal as mine since you’ve never been faced with the decision.
BTW, I never claimed they would all be criminals. You, however, are inferring that they would all be productive citizens who contribute to the tax base. Given the demographics of the majority of women having abortions, there’s probably more reason to believe that a good percentage of them would have been criminals and/or on welfare. Carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term doesn’t automatically make a woman a good mother. What if most of the 40 million were born and hideously abused and, in turn, spurred generations of abuse? Would you still think it was a good idea to bring them into the world?
Even if they were potential Nobel Laureates, for whatever reason, their mothers were not prepared to be bring them into the world. Maybe it was because they were dependent on drugs, maybe it was because they already had a child (or two or three) and couldn’t afford to give them a decent life if they had another, maybe it was because the fathers had unexpectedly left the picture. It doesn’t matter. Accidents happen, mistakes are made. Fortunately, women are not forced into altering their entire lives because of a lapse of good judgment.
elHombre – you said “When the government is not willing, it is appropriate for the public to take steps to oppose the normalization of — indeed a government stamp of approval for — conduct that creates a public health risk.”
Let’s make this abundantly clear. Allowing gay people to have civil unions or get married is a completely different issue from HIV. The problem is not gay people having sex, it’s HIV positive people of all stripes having unprotected sex. It’s irrelevant what orientation someone is, if they are HIV positive then they need to either use protection or not have sex at all, period. Please don’t try to pretend it’s just a gay problem – you need look no further than South Africa to see an epidemic of HIV transmitted primarily through heterosexual relationships.
Paul F. – if I’m reading you correctly you’ve nearly gone off the deep end this time.
“It is also the most devastating plague that was NEVER Quarantined. So much for fear of offending someone overcoming safe medical practice.”
Is this meant to imply that we should have created modern day leper colonies and shipped off all those infected with HIV? If so, just, wow, that is some kind of crazy. Perhaps if HIV were an airborne pathogen like the black plague…but it’s not…
“Aids later went hemophiliac and heterosexual, as the disease mutated. I Mean, as the disease went through the revered Darwinian progression of ’survival of the fittest’, even for viruses.”
1. If I’m reading it correctly, your first statement implies that HIV was initially only capable of infecting gays until it mutated into a new form that was capable of infecting heterosexuals and hemophiliacs. If that indeed is what you were saying it’s just blatantly scientifically false.
2. Regarding your second statement – mutation is correct, the HIV virus in fact mutates at a very rapid pace, and yes there is most certainly natural selection going on with HIV. This is why people get put on “cocktails” of multiple anti-retroviral drugs, to try to minimize the chance of new mutant strains popping up. This is a big part of why there hasn’t been a “cure” developed yet – reverse transcriptase is so error-prone and HIV replicates so rapidly that it’s basically only a matter of time until mutants develop that are resistant to any given anti-retroviral drug.
Dominique……….Bravo
“If you’re truly pro-life, you should also be against war and the death penalty. ”
Until then, you have no credibility.
Thanks Dom
May God bless you with many children
1) If you don’t know when life begins, why do you act like you do?
2) Of course there are justifiable wars – If we are attacked, then we have the right to self-defense, up-to-and-including killing those who are attacking us. That is VERY consistent with a pro-life viewpoint.
3) Death Penalty is BECAUSE we value life – we value innocent life so much that those who take life are punished by forfeiting their own lives because they took that innocent life. This puts a higher value on life, not a lower one. NOT punishing evil devalues life. Equivocating that a murderer’s life has the same value as the innocent life he/she took is illogical. For example, saying that the life of a child molester and murderer is equivalent to the life of the child he molested and killed is illogical.
Mat: The term “marriage,” I believe, has its roots in other areas than just the church.
It’s interesting that AIDS has been brought up. In the past when I’ve asked about whether allowing gays to “marry” would lead to other arrangements — like polygamists and incestuous relationships — many supporters of gay “marriage” said that, regarding my latter example, it’s a “health issue” and an “abuse issue.” If that’s the case, then Paul mentioning HIV certainly would have merit. (I’m not saying I concur w/the overall hypothesis, BTW.)
Johnny: In the US, AIDS was (is) transmitted in large measure by male-to-male sexual contact. Let’s be honest. The campaign here in the States that “everyone can get it” was essentially a fraud. That campaign was established so as not to malign homosexuals as a group, period. It doesn’t change the facts, however: The greatest risk of contracting AIDS was via male-to-male anal sex. Normal hetereosexual sex, even with an infected partner, results in much less of a risk, especially if the infected partner is the female.
In Africa, the transmission of the virus is largely a cultural problem. Female circumcision results in a lot of bleeding via [normal] heterosexual intercourse (blood being the main method of transmission), not to mention the stigma against wearing condoms in many areas on the continent.
I can’t believe I’m jumping into this nonsense. The HIV examples are driving me nuts, probably because my brother is an immuno genetisist. Nice job on the science, Johnny X. I’d venture to say that that you, unlike others here, are trained and educated in the field.
But, just for fun, let’s go with the HIV reason for disallowing gay marriage. You do realize that this example only applies to gay MEN. Lesbians are one of the lowest risk groups for HIV infection. So given your “scientific” reasons… I guess it should be okay for lesbians to marry.
Pandora: Of course, you don’t offer anything of substance (surprise), and for a DLer to mention “jumping into nonsense” is like Robert Mugabe saying he can’t believe all these people are starving.
But from a purely scientific standpoint, yes, lesbians are an extremely low-risk group here in the US.
Can’t help yourself, can you, Hube? And I obviously offered something – something about lesbians which you just acknowledged.
BTW, the nonsense I was referring to dealt with the HIV analogy. A point I noticed you distanced yourself from as well.
Can’t help myself? Someone from the local looneybin blog actually saying that?? Unreal!
Yes, I did distance myself from the whole HIV deal b/c IMO it is irrelevant to the whole discussion of gay unions. But perhaps you could “enlighten” us as to how we’re so “uneducated” about the topic.
Hube – you missed the point of my argument. I’m not denying that male to male anal sex poses the greatest risk for spread of HIV. However, Paul F. said some nonsense about how the virus only spread to heterosexual and hemophiliacs “once it mutated.” That’s a genetic argument, and one that’s just factually wrong. The fact that HIV was and is so persistent in the gay male community is – as you correctly pointed out – due to the mode of transmission. It has nothing to do with viral genetics or mutations.
As far as “everyone can get it” being fraudulent – yes, you’re right, the risk is much greater through anal sex than through other activities. However that doesn’t mean that the risk through other activities is ZERO. I’d say it’s better to err on the side of caution with an “everytone can get it campaign.” After all, we are talking about an infectious disease that, well, can and probably will kill you (unless you’re Magic Johnson and can actually afford all the newest drugs).
You’re correct in your last comment, Johnny. I wasn’t addressing Paul’s specifics like you were. Sorry if I seemed to imply that.
I understand the sentiment behind your “everyone can get it” statement; however, I remember myriad chicken little articles and newscasts that foretold the “coming heterosexual AIDS epidemic.” It never happened (in the US).
Paul:
This has more or less been covered in the other comments, but not only is this an imperfect analogy, it’s an irrelevant one. There is no parallel between HIV and gay marriage. There just isn’t. If anything, the formation of a solid, monogamous union between gays would PREVENT the spread of HIV, but again, it’s too silly a comparison to work with. HIV didn’t start as a gay disease, it became prevalent in the gay community because there was little perceived need for protection from STDs. So I’ll grant you that this is where it started.
But the human immunodeficiency virus itself doesn’t target gay cells. It targets helper T cells, regardless of whose body they’re in. Yes, gays are more likely to get the disease, on average, than heterosexuals. Again, that’s because of limitations on their sexual behavior, not inherently their sexual preference. To say it’s a gay disease–not that you explicitly did so–is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst.
Hube:
Point taken. If marriage is not a church institution, then I see no issue with gays taking part in it. If marriage IS a church institution, then the government should have nothing to do with it.
I didn’t say “Woman” couldnt’ drive to the store, I said someone. The man is also perfectly capablle of buying condoms. I have done it myself many times.
It is absolutely true that I have never missed a period. However, I am only half the equation. I have had significant others who have. The emotions that I felt at those times were similar I am sure to what she was feeling.
All men who inadvertently get someone pregnant do not just leave the woman to bear 100% of the burden.
To make that assumption is as bad as assuming that all babies who have been aborted would have been non-contributors to society. I am just saying, nobody knows how they would have been.
There are only 2 questions to answer:
1. Is a fetus a human? I would say yes, for the simple reason that we are all former fetuses, and embryos.
2. If you answer yes to question 1, then is it ok to terminate that life because it causes someone a hardship?
If yes, why stop with fetuses? It has already happened in Oregon that a state employee was told that the insurance wouldn’t pay for his chemo, however it would pay for him to have an assisted suicide. There are people who advocate that you should be able to terminate an infant’s life up to the three month point.. not three months before the due date, three months after birth! I guess that’s cool..as long as you get to be the “decider.” Not so cool for the decidee.
I heard a recent estimate of the # of abortions in the US is around 1000 per day. We have government mandated sex ed, free birth control from the health department, etc. I guess the public schools are not doing any better at teaching sex ed than they are at teaching math or English.
At least if McCain had been elected there might be a chance to over turn Roe V. Wade. Then, abortion would not be illegal everywhere, but the states could decide for themselves, the way the Constitution says. Instead, it only takes 5 people on the Supreme Court to rule the whole country. Might as well be in a Central American Junta.
Paul, just to sum this up:
Attraction between gays does not hurt anybody but, possibly, the gays.
Sex between gays, assuming that blood donations are made, can hurt somebody.
Getting married does not require a blood donation. I do not, therefore, see where the issue with marriage comes up.
Dominique said: ““Conservatives don’t hate homosexuals, we just think their life choices are wrong.”
Why on earth would anyone choose to be a homosexual? It’s not a choice anymore than being heterosexual is. I could also do without the description of abortion as ‘murdering’ an unborn child. It’s a cheap overdramatization that, other than riling up those who already agree with you, does nothing to further the cause of changing minds.
I have never met anyone who’s ambiguous about abortion. You’re either for it or against it. I am for it. In some cases, I wish it was mandatory. Regardless of where a person stands on the issue, it’s unlikely someone is going to change their mind – especially by using language that’s designed to incite anger.”
Of course it is a choice. You can’t change the color of your skin or where you were born. However, homosexuality is a behavior, and we make volitional choices about what we do. You can choose to not engage in homosexual sex.
You have NOT addressed the issue, other than to object to speaking of murder aborted babies. You have not made a convincing argument that an unborn baby is not a person. Show me the scientific evidence that unborn children are not human. Show me the evidence that they don’t feel anything. Show me the scientific evidence that their DNA is the same as the mother’s and that they are really just another kidney or a liver.
This is not designed to incite anger – it is designed to get to the core of the issue. If it not a person, then it doesn’t deserve protection. If it is, then you need to concede the point.
JJ
Okay… I don’t believe it’s a person. Now what, JJ?
“Of course it is a choice. You can’t change the color of your skin or where you were born. However, homosexuality is a behavior, and we make volitional choices about what we do. You can choose to not engage in homosexual sex.”
First of all, same-sex attraction is not a choice. Acting on that attraction is a choice, but so is acting on male-female attraction.
Hell, being (presumably) religious is your choice, but nobody’s allowed to fire you for it, nor are you banned from any of the freedoms that secular folks enjoy.
Also, James:
The issue of abortion is not so much one of when life begins as it is of competing rights. The rights of the mother–of life, of liberty, of privacy–vs. the right to life of the unborn child. Both are protected by the 14th Amendment. However, in prioritizing those rights (which is an unfortunate necessity), SCOTUS has determined that until the fetus is viable outside of the womb, its rights are nil. The mother, retaining her rights to, again, life, liberty and privacy, is therefore allowed to abort the pregnancy.
I’m not pro-abortion, myself. I’m pro-choice. I think the procedure is an atrocity, and were women to stop getting abortions, or to stop needing abortions, the world would be a better place. That said, the alternative to legal abortion is illegal abortion. They will–I repeat, they WILL–happen either way. If you honestly come to the conclusion that you’re willing to terminate a potential life, it’s a serious conclusion. If the process is going to happen, I would MUCH rather it take place in a medical setting than in an unsanitary, plainly inhumane, dangerous “back-alley” situation.
JJ -
I don’t believe an embryo/fetus is a “person” until about halfway through the second trimester. If it’s not viable outside of the womb, I don’t see it as a person. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a person or not. It’s not my choice, it’s the mother’s and, not having walked a mile in her shoes, I would not judge her decision.
Is it safe to assume that you are against abortion in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother? If so, I’m not sure how you sleep at night. If not, is that fetus any less a “person” in your eyes?
I’m sorry, but I’m really not interested in arguing the issue anymore. You believe what you believe; I believe what I believe. Neither of us is going to change our mind. I’m not a Christian, but I think you probably are. Perhaps you should leave the judgment to God.
Nicely done, Dom.
Pandora: Believing something does not change a fact. Believing that you won’t get hit by a speeding car when crossing a busy highway blindfolded will not keep you from being hit. We need to assess the facts. The fetus has a unique DNA, responds to sensation, and if left undisturbed, becomes an adult human. It is clear that an unborn fetus is simply a small human which will grow up to be a big human if given the chance. As I said, it is important to look at scientific facts in this matter. All roads point to the unborn being a person, a human, and not simply an extra tumor.
Matt said: “Hell, being (presumably) religious is your choice, but nobody’s allowed to fire you for it, nor are you banned from any of the freedoms that secular folks enjoy.”
Your mistake here is that secular people have a religion as well, everyone has a religion. Not all religions have a diety figure, but everyone has a point-of-view, and that’s your religion.
And YES, you can certainly be fired for running around the office preaching your religion when you’re paid to be working. Freedom of speech and religion doesn’t give you carte blanche to waste your employer’s time.
Dominque said: “I don’t believe an embryo/fetus is a “person” until about halfway through the second trimester. If it’s not viable outside of the womb, I don’t see it as a person. At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter to me if it’s a person or not. It’s not my choice, it’s the mother’s and, not having walked a mile in her shoes, I would not judge her decision.
Is it safe to assume that you are against abortion in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother? If so, I’m not sure how you sleep at night. If not, is that fetus any less a “person” in your eyes?
I’m sorry, but I’m really not interested in arguing the issue anymore. You believe what you believe; I believe what I believe. Neither of us is going to change our mind. I’m not a Christian, but I think you probably are. Perhaps you should leave the judgment to God.”
There is no scientific information that shows that a fetus ’suddenly’ becomes a person halfway through the 2nd trimester. There is no quantitative measurement that something changes at that point. It is arbitrary and capricious to make that statement. It is completely unscientific.
“Not viable outside the room”? C’mon, if someone is on life support, or requires oxygen to survive, does that make them less a person? Why don’t you talk to people who have Emphysema and tell them that because they are dependent on oxygen that they are not persons? The level of dependency does not determine personhood. Otherwise, I guess we can kill babies and old people.
I also don’t see how the tragic circumstances of pregnancy means that the person who is resulting from the crime or circumstances should die because of the crime. That would be inhumane. Yes, we should be compassionate, and give emotional and physical support, but I don’t see how offering to kill their unborn child is a solution to a already difficult circumstance.
OK, so you are tired of the debate. However, who is speaking up for the unborn? Why should we turn a deaf ear and blind eye to those who have no voice? That is acting without compassion. “You believe what you do, I believe what I do.” that is convenient, but it doesn’t solve the 40 Million babies already killed since 1972, with 99.99% of them for sake of convenience, NOT for health of mother, rape, incest, or anything else.
I don’t like to argue, but if we are honest, I think we can see that the size of a person, the dependency of a person, the level of development of a person, the environment of a person have no bearing on whether that person IS a person, and whether they have value.
Give me some scientific reasons why I am wrong and I will listen.
Dominque said: “t’s not my choice, it’s the mother’s and, not having walked a mile in her shoes, I would not judge her decision.”
OK, so if you knew the Nazis were killing the Jews, you would say that it is not your choice, you didn’t choose to kill them, and I haven’t walked a mile in their shoes, you would not judge them?
That’s pretty thin.
Yes, we should have compassion for the mother, I agree. However, saying that one can’t judge a situation because you are not party to the situation is just nonsensical. If I am a man, I am not qualified to judge anything having to do with women? That’s not logical.
It seems that this is simply a mechanism to shut down debate, and not get to the core of the debate.
I suggest you, once again, get to the core. Show quantitative evidence that an unborn fetus is not a person and is not human, and I’ll listen.
Thanks. JJ
Interesting comments from all sides. I have stayed out of this one so far, probably because many of you would find my perspective somewhat predictable. In some ways you would be right, but in others, you might be surprised. But with 60 comments so far and counting, perhaps it is better for me to get my thoughts together in a separate post, hopefully after things have had a chance to cool down.
Matt said: “The issue of abortion is not so much one of when life begins as it is of competing rights. The rights of the mother–of life, of liberty, of privacy–vs. the right to life of the unborn child. Both are protected by the 14th Amendment. However, in prioritizing those rights (which is an unfortunate necessity), SCOTUS has determined that until the fetus is viable outside of the womb, its rights are nil. The mother, retaining her rights to, again, life, liberty and privacy, is therefore allowed to abort the pregnancy.
I’m not pro-abortion, myself. I’m pro-choice. I think the procedure is an atrocity, and were women to stop getting abortions, or to stop needing abortions, the world would be a better place. That said, the alternative to legal abortion is illegal abortion. They will–I repeat, they WILL–happen either way. If you honestly come to the conclusion that you’re willing to terminate a potential life, it’s a serious conclusion. If the process is going to happen, I would MUCH rather it take place in a medical setting than in an unsanitary, plainly inhumane, dangerous “back-alley” situation.”
OK Mat,
Issue of abortion is not so much of when life begins as it is… What? So SCOTUS can’t be wrong? Of course they can. They are fallible.
To say that the killing of the unborn fetus does not depend on when life begins is simply disingenuous. If you were the fetus, I’m sure you would agree. It used to be that slaves were not considered human beings, and they spoke of slaves being ‘nonhuman’ and ‘property’, and speak of the ‘property-owner’s’ rights. How can we make that same mistake? Just because a baby is dependent on the mother does not give the mother carte-blanche to do whatever she will to a baby. It is NOT about rights. We should, in a compassionate society, FIRST determine when life begins, and then move from there. Trying to put the debate sideways by speaking of ‘rights’ is both illusory and dishonest. Sure, if it were an extra kidney, I would agree with you. First you have to convince me that the unborn child is NOT a person.
Just because something is done privately does not make it right. Most murders ARE done in secret.
What on earth do you mean, you are not pro-abortion, but pro-choice? That is empty. Life is a choice. If the procedure is an atrocity, why support it?
Your logical flaw is to say that the alternative to legal abortion is illegal abortion. That’s not logical. Obviously, alternatives include adoption and more support for the mom. How come no one talks about the emotional scarring of the mother after an abortion?
Saying that “If you MUST murder your unborn child, I’d much rather you do it safely” is really scary. Why can’t we choose life? Why can’t we protect those who can’t protect themselves? It once again gets back to the issue of personhood. I see no need to protect that which needs no protection, but for those who cannot speak for themselves, and are innocent of any wrongdoing, I find it tremendously troubling that we would reduce these little people to being ‘property’ or ‘rights’ or some such discussion.
Gotta give scientific evidence that they are not people, because ALL the scientific evidence is that… they ARE.
First off homosexuality is not a “behavior choice”. You are born homosexual or hetrosexual! No one would “choose to be homosexual”. If marriage is so sacrosant why do we permit divorce? Divorce is the biggest threat to “marriages”.
On the abortion question, why is it when the republicans are in the highest levels of government there are “more” not less abortion. While Bush was president and the country became more and more impoverished…there were more abortions.
A fetus is not a human it is a cell. You are a full human being when you can live outside the womb. There are so many children that no one wants living in horrific foster care programs, living in detention centers, disabled kids the throwaway kids nobody wants. This whole argument is false on its face.
The church cannot impose its wishes on the entire society. The Consitution made that clear in the separation of church and state. If I am a rock worshiper, or an agnostic or a secularist that is my choice and elected officials must stand for my rights as well as everyone else’s.
I love the Catholics and their one issue voting. Where are they when our government kills men, women children in huge numbers? Like the 1.6 million innocents we just slaugherted in Iraq. Do they have a right “to live”? What about the Gazans being starved to death in Palestine right now? Do they have a right to live? If you believe in God and believe that he created every living thing, how can you stand for war, horrific poverty worldwide? How can you be such a hypocrite when it comes to “thou shalt not kill” as a commandment and then send our young men and women to slaughter any people! Those innocents who are dying for the multi national corporations have a right to live, but you forgive your government who “decided” they should die..for oil or some other resource.
The Constitution does not discriminate. Homosexuals, hetrosexuals, trans sexuals all have the same rights under that document. Keep your religion private since it is a private matter and stop trying to impose your personal beliefs on the rest of society.
You Catholics should be more concerned about your pedophile priests…they rob the child of any normal life. If the Church permitted priests to marry perhaps they would’nt have abhorent behavior. But the Church decided that they didnt want married priests, because the Church would have to pay for the family. The Church was anti family in that regard.
The Catholic church are nothing but hypocrits. Clean your own house first and take your personal opinion about my life and my choices and stuff it. Under the Consitution I have freedom to choose…that is my freedom and you Catholic’s and hard core evangelicals have no right to tell me what to do. If the Church insists on imposing its views on the rest of us…time for you to start PAYING TAXES on all those contributions.
A fetus is not a human it is a cell
Not getting into this, but that above is one ASININE statement…
A fetus is not a cell. That’s a zygote. And that “cell” is the basis of all humans. Let’s not stretch the truth here.
Wow. “Anon” and “Anon2″ are pretty angry.
I never said I was Catholic. I’m just arguing on the merits of the case. Why do you guys keep dragging something in that has no bearing on the debate? Why can’t you stick to the topic?
Homosexuality is an activity. Activity is a choice. That is what I am saying. Celibacy is a choice. Heterosexuality is a choice. They are activities (or lack of activity, I guess)
I agree with you, if you make a promise to stay together forever (marriage), then why does divorce exist? I totally am with you here. The problem is LACK OF WILL TO KEEP A PROMISE. So, we are in agreement there.
“A fetus is not a human it is a cell. You are a full human being when you can live outside the womb.” That is an arbitrary definition. The level of dependency should not determine personhood. We are all dependent on something. Don’t believe me, try holding your breath for 10 minutes. The level of dependency has nothing to do with personhood, or else all babies and sick and elderly are at risk of being re-defined as ‘non-persons’. I think you need a better definition that is not arbitrary and capricious.
OK, so you aren’t a person if ‘no one wants you’? So, if you have abusive parents, or are an orphan, you are not a person? Once again, an argument based on non-scientific evidence. This should at least be a call for either abstinence or contraception use, if you take that path.
Boy, I didn’t say anything about political parties… Why does the Republican or Democrat administration have anything to do with definition of personhood? Wow, you’re pretty far in left field, I think.
I never said anything about churches or such. Don’t know why you’re draggin’ that in.. I am simply saying that we as a society owe it to our culture to examine the factual basis of life and personhood, because that should form the basis for our decisions. Why? Because you treat a rock differently from a person, that’s why. If you can’t understand that, then we have a failure to communicate!
From what I see, the invective directed at my comments, and calling me Catholic or Republican or ‘church person’ simply shows how narrow-minded the poster is. Why can’t you address the scientific evidence, instead of making personal attacks or lumping me in some camp?
I didn’t say ANYTHING about basis on personal beliefs. I have brought up valid, logical basis for discussing things. Why do you try and just shut me up without addressing the core of my arguments? Seems you are rather intolerant.
Wow. Lots of vitriol here. Stop spewing for a minute, eh? Just look at how hateful you are being!
I am being respectful of you. I’d appreciate a return courtesy. Childish name-calling!
JJ
WHERE IS YOUR PROOF? What is this scientific proof that a “cell” is a person? That is a Catholic idea.
You don’t get it. You keep saying that homosexuality is a behavior as if you can choose it or not. If you are heterosexual…did YOU choose it. No, you just are or are not.
And my comment was not addressed to you personally, but to the entire discussion of church and state etc.
I am saying the biggest threat to marriage is divorce! Not whether a woman loves another woman or a man loves another man, its about love. We only go around once in this life, why does it bother you who I love or don’t love….its none of your business. Why not address the issues I raised about the real killing of “living” innocents..those killed in horrific wars! Those killed by the State. When the State kills someone, that is state sanctioned killing? Do you believe in the death penalty? Is the State, God! The hypocrisy makes me angry.
Mat,
I re-read my post.
I made no mention about marriage or the affects of civil unions in my posts.
Way back in post #26, I stated the reason of my post.
“I always like hearing that someone’s actions do not affect others. I call Bullshit. ”
My analogy depended only on My premise.
Peoples actions, all of those actions, affects all of us.
Mat,
“Getting married does not require a blood donation. I do not, therefore, see where the issue with marriage comes up.”
I did not make up a connection with marriage. You did.
Way back in post #26, I stated the reason of my post.
“I always like hearing that someone’s actions do not affect others. I call Bullshit. ”
JohnnyX
In #38 you stated, IF that was what I was saying:
“1. If I’m reading it correctly, your first statement implies that HIV was initially only capable of infecting gays until it mutated into a new form that was capable of infecting heterosexuals and hemophiliacs. If that indeed is what you were saying it’s just blatantly scientifically false.”
Then in #46 It becomes I SAID:
# 46 “However, Paul F. said some nonsense about how the virus only spread to heterosexual and hemophiliacs “once it mutated.” That’s a genetic argument, and one that’s just factually wrong.”
Seems that what I say is also mutating, with your help. Looks like you are not sure what I meant, but you can not wait to refute it. I see no need to defend what I did not say.
Seems like Mat has the same problem:
“To say it’s a gay disease–not that you explicitly did so–is ignorant at best and bigoted at worst.”
I did not say so… SO, There!
Still pretty angry there ‘anon2′.
OK, one thing at a time. You are the one who keeps dragging church into this discussion. I have not. Regardless of source, there is no need to spout hatred for the source. Just deal with the idea at hand. OK…
1) How do we define a person? Is a person defined by their size, their environment, their dependency, or their level of development?
I would argue that a person is defined by several physical attributes, and then by some metaphysical attributes. Clearly, if a body has a completely different set of DNA, then it can be differentiated from another body. That’s one piece of scientific data. The unborn have a DNA pattern that is clearly different from the mother. It has similarities, but it is distinct, just as two siblings would be very similar but distinct. So, that’s one marker. An individual needs to be distinct in some way. Science has provided DNA as a completely unique set of markers that help to distinguish individuality. We certainly accept DNA as proof in court that one individual did something and not another. Therefore, DNA appears to be a good starting point for defining individuality and personhood.
Regarding level of development, the DNA becomes ‘complete’ at the point of fertilization of an egg by the sperm. That is irrefutable. So, the DNA ‘blueprint’ is intact at point of conception. That is clear and unmistakable. That is science. The fertilized egg, if left in an appropriate environment (witnessed by the fact of invitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood), regardless of whether it is the biological mother providing that environment or not, will eventually develop into a human being. That is why I dispute the drawing of arbitrary lines such as a certain timeframe when a fetus becomes a person. If we don’t know when a fetus becomes a person, why act like we do?
Therefore, I would reject your notion that just because an idea comes from a certain corner, that it automatically is illegitimate. It appears that at least the concept of a clearly identifiable, individual DNA being part and parcel of a human is a legitimate concept towards personhood.
Metaphysical aspect: Part of being a person involves the concept of self-awareness, or consciousness. However, at what point does a person become conscious? That is rather unknown at this point, and again, why do we act like we know when we do not?
Even with all our advances in science, we actually don’t have the foggiest notion of how consciousness occurs. We humans can conceive of truths that are not computable. This alone convinces me that machines can never equal the human mind. But, at what point does the human receive the “Operating System”? DNA, as we understand it, doesn’t have any information respecting the ‘loading of the OS’.
Anyway, my answer is that uniqueness, individuality, and consciousness appear to be a start to an answer as to what a person is.
2) YOU don’t get it. The color of your skin is not a choice. The choice of whether you engage in an activity IS a choice. Abusing children is a choice. Doing something noble is a choice. These are actions. They are activities. You are defined by what you do. You do bad things, society calls you a bad person. You do good things, society calls you a good person. Sexual activity is an activity. Whether it is homo or heterosexual, it is still an activity.
3) OK, I accept you didn’t target me individually, but I AM NOT the one bringing church and state into this discussion – you are.
4) True, divorce, or not keeping your promise is a huge threat to marriage. Marriage is not a feeling. It is a keeping a promise. I agree that not keeping your promise is the biggest threat to marriage. OK.
5) The reason why I object to the redefinition of marriage is that the definition of marriage has been biological – the minimum set necessary for procreation of the species. Even a couple of generations ago, marriages were typically arranged affairs having NOTHING to do with love, and in places like India, it’s actually going back in that direction. Marriage has been defined in the context of the minimal procreation unit and biological furtherance of the species.
If we are redefine it as anything else, then it appears we are headed down redefining it to be anything and everything that we love. Why not 3 men? Or 5 men and 2 women and a dog? If we remove the concept of ‘minimum procreational unit’, then we are, again, down a slippery slope.
I don’t care who you love or don’t love, you’re right, it doesn’t involve me. However, who are you to redefine the basic definition of the procreation minimum? You want to do that and force everyone to applaud your redefinition. Not here, bud.
6) Horrific wars? Of course war is horrific. Wow. You want to pin all warfare on me? Or Catholics? You’re pretty hot and heavy with that smear campaign. War is sometimes a necessary evil – How about WWII? We were attacked, and we defended ourselves, including beating the enemy and killing enough of them so that they surrender. While the loss of life I agree is bad, what would be the alternative? Allow the Nazis and Japanese to kill or subjugate us all? C’mon. That is rather naive.
Now you’re going to make me explain Iraq? How did it go from defining a person and abortions to Iraq? You’re all over the map here.
Are you a doctor? a scientist? a evangelical? Why is your argument the only argument. You are anti abortion…fine…dont have one. You are anti gay fine…dont engage. But you have no right to decide for anyone else outside your person how anyone else lives their life. Thats personal freedom.
anon2.
Wow. Your logic defies logic.
I never said my argument is the only argument. I only offered detailed responses to your questions, using logic, reason and facts to illustrate my points. I ask you to respond to pointed questions that are based on facts, and you refuse. You simply use catch phrases and silly language to try and confuse. Here’s what you said:
“You are anti-gay fine… don’t engage”. I never said I was anti-gay. I only said that homosexual activity is an activity, and that activity is not the same as skin color. Activity is something you do. Don’t put words in my mouth. Speak for yourself.
You said: “You are anti abortion…fine…don’t have one.” You’re using a cutesy phrase to try and shut off debate. You have NOT answered the question of how a person is defined, and when life begins. If the unborn are persons, then they have human rights as well. You haven’t addressed that at all. Who is trying to shut off reasoned debate here? YOU ARE. Where are your precious scientific facts and figures? Where is your reasoning and logic? Let’s have it!
“You have no right to decide for anyone else outside your person how anyone else lives their life.” Now, THAT is an absolute statement. How do you know that is true? How do you know you are right? If we cling to that sentiment, then who would stop the Nazis from exterminating all the Jews? They want to kill Jews, they are outside my person, so we should just ignore them? How about ethnic cleansing in Darfur? Perhaps we should ignore that as well? It’s not our business? We should turn a blind eye to genocide?
If the unborn are human individuals with rights, then we have every obligation as fellow humans to defend their rights. Why do you not admit that? Stop with the cute sayings. Why not engage in reasoned debate?
JJ
“You have no right to decide for anyone else outside your person how anyone else lives their life.”
That is perhaps the MOST ARROGANT, MOST ABSOLUTE, MOST SHUT-OFF-DEBATE statement I’ve seen yet. Good job!
JJ
Paul:
Well then we’re arguing separate points — nevermind. My mistake.
Not a Mistake… Just a new understanding.
I mean No offense…
I enjoy the discussions…
Well, look on the bright side… James Johnson supports gay marriage.
“If the unborn are human individuals with rights, then we have every obligation as fellow humans to defend their rights.”
Pandora said: “Well, look on the bright side… James Johnson supports gay marriage.
“If the unborn are human individuals with rights, then we have every obligation as fellow humans to defend their rights.””
The reason why I object to the redefinition of marriage is that the definition of marriage has been biological – the minimum set necessary for procreation of the species. It has never been based on ‘human rights’ or ‘love’ or anything like that. It is a biological definition.
Okay, there’s another silver lining… James Johnson is adamantly against the death penalty.
the minimum set necessary for procreation of the species.
Which is why the elderly and infertile aren’t allowed to marry.
There is a fertility test?
OH, that’s right. There is.
Something about Shaving, Testosterone levels and oftentimes a mixture of Alcohol and Fighting. Darwin would most likely agree.
JJ – I don’t recall you answering my question about whether you would support abortion in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother.
You appear to have all of the standard canned answers that I’ve heard every pro-lifer spew since I was a wee lass in Catholic grade school. They’re nothing but empty words to me because, you see, as a pregnant 18-year old, I was contacted by the head of the DE Right to Life committee whose son was a friend of my daughter’s biological father. Her son told her that I was considering terminating the pregnancy and the calls to me and to my family started. I decided against the abortion (not because of any of the nonsense she was peddling, mind you, but because I foolishly thought it would be easier than it actually was).
Once my daughter was born, Mrs. Pro-Life fell off the face of the earth (naturally). She resurfaces from time to time with some sappy opinion piece in the News Journal around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but I don’t bother reading her crap because I know what she and so many other pro-lifers are about: the fetus. Not the baby. Not the mother. Not the quality of life either of their lives. Just the fetus. It’s like a sick obsession.
You don’t have to answer my question, JJ. Just know that no matter how many scientific facts you point to that prove an embryo/fetus is a human life, it doesn’t matter to those of us capable of seeing the big picture. Having a baby at the wrong time completely alters the course of a life. Think about what you’re asking women to do – sacrifice THEIR futures for the sake of YOUR beliefs. What an arrogant expectation.
BTW, JJ, when was the exact moment that you ‘chose’ to be a heterosexual? Did you see a girl standing next to a boy and consciously decide that you were going to be attracted to the girl? What was it like?
Paul and Mat, such infantile and rude responses.
Dominique, I can be compassionate concerning your situation. Given the responses and attitude I’ve received thus far, I suppose it will be met with derision and more smart remarks from all the lovely tolerant contributors here.
However, I can see your point of view and I can have empathy and compassion concerning it. I am glad you had your child. I’m sure your child is happy too. That’s really my point. I know that you are angry concerning the ‘cut and dried’ nature of your relationship with those whom you felt just told you what to do, and then didn’t really continue to nurture the relationship, but I don’t see how their relationship with you affects the decision to kill an unborn child. If they are rude, or if I am rude or am polite, why does that make them wrong in wanting to defend the life of the unborn?
I DID answer your question on rape and incest. I said that if an unborn baby is a person, a human, an unborn child, I don’t see how horrific circumstances concerning the pregnancy should result in murdering the child. It wasn’t the child’s fault. Why should we consider murder? If the father is a sick, criminal rapist, why kill the child? Yes, I agree that it would be a constant reminder of the crime, and an emotional burden, but I don’t see how killing someone, regardless of how they came to be, is the solution to the dilemma. I think that counseling a mother-to-be to kill their unborn is a very horrible thing.
I don’t understand the logic of saying “No matter how much fact and truth you put in front of me, the bigger picture is that if it is inconvenient, or a financial burden, I should have the right to kill my unborn child.” How is it asking to sacrifice for my beliefs? My beliefs have NOTHING to do with whether it is a child with rights. What I believe is immaterial. If I believe the child is made of silly putty it doesn’t matter. What matters is the FACT of whether the child should be saved and protected, and I believe all children, regardless of their circumstances, should be protected from death and harm if it is within our power. How is that attitude mean and hateful? It is, on the contrary, compassionate and tender-hearted. It is not arrogant to protect those who can’t protect themselves. Is it not more arrogant to say that your convenience and career are more important than the life of your child?
Dominique, why the nasty attitude? All I said was sexual activity is activity, and it is a choice to engage or not in engage in activity. If I stand next to someone and am attracted to them, it is a choice what I do about that attraction. I am not denying that the attraction exists, I am simply saying that you have volitional choice as to what you do. You don’t have to act out on your attraction. Therefore, equating an activity to an immovable event or state is illogical. You can’t decide the color of your skin. You CAN decide what activities you engage in.
My questions weren’t meant to come across as nasty and I apologize if they did. They were very serious questions and your response seems to indicate that you believe that homosexuals should simply resist the urge to act on the love they feel for someone while heterosexuals are free to do as they please. So, are you saying it’s ok with you that they love people of their own gender as long as they don’t engage in any physical contact with them? I’m a bit confused by your logic.
I feel it necessary to point out – again – that your responses to emotional issues all seem to come down to scientific facts and logic. That’s a bit Vulcanesque, don’t you think? That’s not how love works, nor is it how decisions about starting a family work.
The best thing about being a citizen of this great country is that we are allowed to control our own destinies with minimal interference from our government. It is not for you or anyone else to tell me or anyone else who to love and when to have a child. Period. You do not control my life anymore than I control yours. I would never presume to tell someone that it is immoral – and should be illegal – to have twelve children because they cannot afford them and overpopulation puts a strain on our environment. It is not for me to judge another’s morals.
Dominique,
Thank you for your message. It is thoughtful and has some valid questions.
I’m not implying that one group should ‘resist the urge’ and another should not. I am pointing out the logical flaws in saying that any activity is unavoidable because of genetics. “I was born this way” is the standard response. If “I was born this way” is the accepted response, then what do you say to that fellow who was recently arrested for enslaving his own daughter and raping her in a dungeon for 20 years? His current defense is “I was born to be a rapist, I can’t help it.”. We do not condone rape because, regardless of inclination, we know that forcible sexual activity is an action, a wrong action, and we hold the person responsible. Therefore, I hold that we are ALL capable of controlling our urges and actions, regardless of whether it is hetero or homosexual. I have not, to this point, said whether one is right and one is wrong, or that both are right or both are wrong. I am simply pointing out the irrational nature of the “I can’t help it” argument.
Ah, your second paragraph cuts to the point. Our society has gone down the path of saying that love is a subjective preference with no real and objective value – it is an emotion. It’s a feeling! No, it is not. Love is a commitment of the will to the true good of another person. However, our society has decided to abolish absolutes – hence the title of this discussion – “Down with absolutes!”, thus how can one’s will be committed to the true good of another person if he denies the reality of good, denies the reality of persons, and denies that his commitments are in his control? We need to understand that love is not a subjective feeling. It is a decision. Of course, feelings come into play, but even when I am angry and upset and disappointed with someone, I can still love them… because I made the CHOICE to love them. Isn’t that true love? True love is that which is capable of loving that which is unlovely.
Actually, our country and all societies DO control our actions. We are not allowed to rob, kill, rape with impunity. The Constitution is a set of LAWS, and acts as the highest law of the land. We are NOT a country of anarchy and anarchism. You are confusing equal protection under the law with saying “everyone is right” in what they do. You have freedom to do a lot, that is true. We have an obligation as a society to judge morals. The very fact that you say “you ought not” is evidence that there are absolutes, otherwise you have no right to say “You ought not”.
The majority of posters on this column have stated that since we do not know whether the fetus is a human being, we should let each woman decide for herself, privately, whether she should have an abortion or not. This is an argument from ignorance. Even if it were true that we do not know what babies are – a point I do not concede – why should we say that because a baby might not be human we may kill him? Why not say that because he might be, we should protect him? Which is the more compassionate view? We do not say that because I might not hit anyone, I may swing my sword blindly in a crowded room – we say that because I might hit someone, I should NOT. Lastly, it is mental vapidness to claim certainty that humans have great value, but to be ignorant whether our own young are human.
Thank you again for responding in a thoughtful way.
Johnson: you just DON’T get it….I have many gay friends who have told me they always felt different even a little, little children. They liked boys not as just pals, but they liked them like we had crushes on the opposite sex. You stay with your same lame arguments giving no credence to genetics.
Do you have any control over your sexuality? C’mon your comparisons to sexuality and sword swinging are a joke.
anon2 – you need to specify why they are lame, and how they are illogical. Simply stating it does not make it so. You have failed to rebut the issue that activity is not the same as skin color. One is controlled, the other is not. I never said that people didn’t have feelings. However, having feelings and acting on them are two different things.
Also, I didn’t compare sexuality to sword swinging. Are you even reading the post? Who is lame here?
JJ
You keep the thread going with your pronouncements. Are you in the closet and dealing with your own sexuality or are you just a homophobe looking for support.
So homosexuality is okay as long as they don’t act on (have sex) their feelings?
Also, take it easy with those “scientific” references. Just because something hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Your opinion is not science. Please stop presenting it as such.
Pandora: Which “Scientific” references are you questioning? I agree that if something hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I have not presented opinion as science. I have presented scientific facts (e.g. The unborn fetus has a unique DNA. http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/genetics-topic-overview)
What have I presented that you feel is opinion and not science? Some is just logical conclusion. For example, you can’t change your inherent skin color, but you CAN control how you act. How is that opinion and not fact? Please be specific where you think I am wrong.
anon2 – Boy, you’re the one making pronouncements. I am giving you science, logic, reason, and fact-based rhetoric. Who is it who starts talking about ‘looking for support’ and ‘in the closet’ and ‘just a homophobe’. Why don’t you simply deal with the facts and logic I have outlined? Why do you continually try to pull the argument down a side corridor with innuendoes or trying to assess motive? Are you unable to address the questions and facts presented? Are you afraid of losing in the arena of ideas? Let’s speak of the ideas, and if I am wrong, I will be glad to admit I am wrong. You’ll notice when I agree with something you or someone else says, I say so. All I see is rock-throwing from you.
If something I present is illogical, then outline HOW it is illogical. If you think I’m right, then just say so. Please don’t retreat to changing the subject or calling names. I consider that behavior immature.
JJ
Hmm… let’s start with this one.
“The reason why I object to the redefinition of marriage is that the definition of marriage has been biological – the minimum set necessary for procreation of the species. It has never been based on ‘human rights’ or ‘love’ or anything like that. It is a biological definition.”
SEX is necessary for procreation of the species. You don’t need to be married to procreate. Also, marriage is not biological, it is social and cultural. If you outlawed marriage tomorrow people would still have sex (which is a drive and not simply an”activity”) and still procreate.
Outlawing marriage does not equal the end of sex and the end of procreation. They are two very different things.
“Paul and Mat, such infantile and rude responses.”
Infantile? Really?
I think I made a valid point. Seriously, JJ, are you against the elderly or infertile marrying?
Here are a couple of facts. In 1973 the American Psychiatric Assoc deemed homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder or disease. Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals under the Constitution.
Another fact: you believe in the Bible. Abraham had 30 wives…by today’s standards that is a polygamist! Marriage has changed and evolved over the centuries.
There are elderly homosexuals and they are organized in a group “Sage”. Homosexuality exists worldwide always has always will. It is not by choice, it is genetic.
The church and the Bible are hypocritical on the topic. If you are evangelical and believe in the Bible literally than you believe in polygamy and slavery!
Sorry I don’t believe in Jewish fairy tales or Catholic, or Christian beliefs as the only religion! I am a secularist humanist who cares about all people regardless of race, color, creed or sexual preference. If you believe in God than you must believe he created all living things and does not prefer one religion over another.
========
“Paul and Mat, such infantile and rude responses.”
Infantile? Really?
I think I made a valid point. Seriously, JJ, are you against the elderly or infertile marrying?
========
I’m with Mat.
Although, I was trying to be funny.
.
Elton John is for Prop. 8!
From the Elton John article: “You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”
Perhaps the “same equal rights” bit is true in England, but I don’t think it can be argued to be the same in the U.S. (at least not in every state). I think that’s, at the heart of the issue, what gay individuals probably want. Put that in place and you’d only have the hardcore extremists still worried about the word “marriage.”
Really, Johnny? But Prop. 8 was about gay marriage, not civil partnerships now, wasn’t it? Perhaps if CA had a referendum on precisely that, I’d wager we’d see a different outcome. And this is exactly what I’ve been writing about these past weeks — fight THAT battle and get off the term “marriage” kick.
Anon said
“On the abortion question, why is it when the republicans are in the highest levels of government there are “more” not less abortion. While Bush was president and the country became more and more impoverished…there were more abortions.”
Where do you get these statistics? Also, even if one stipulates to your stats for the sake of argument, if you took even a basics stats course, they would teach you that just the fact that there is a correlation does not imply or prove cause/effect relationship. There are lots of possible explanations for the correlation. For example, the population grows exponentially. A certain percentage of the population will get abortions. So in the 8 years during the Bush presidency, the population grew, probably by 5 mil or so. So, it is natural that the # of abortions will rise with the population.
None of this discussion matters anymore.
Obama will pack the Supreme Court with Ruth Bader Ginsberg clones, Pelosi and Reid will give him a rubber stamp for cap and trade, windfall profits taxes on energy companies, constant “stimulus” checks to all, legal gay marriage everywhere, abortion up to the due date (or after) in every state, seize everyone’s 401K, seize everyone’s privately owned firearms to prevent any meaningful resistance, government run media a la Pravda, and on and on. Any dissent will be classified as “hate” speech, and the speaker fired from their job or imprisoned. The USA is on the way down the toilet. There will be 12-15% unemployment, interest rates will hit 20%.
Anon2 says “You Catholics should be more concerned about your pedophile priests…they rob the child of any normal life. If the Church permitted priests to marry perhaps they would’nt have abhorent behavior.”
Celibacy does not cause pedophelia, nor does marriage prevent or cure it. An independent study was done by the John Jay Law School of the Church scandal. Basically the rate of molestation by priests is about the same as that for school teachers. 85% of molestations of children occur by family members. The SF chronicle, hardly a Catholic Church mouthpiece, reported this. You can read it here.
Again, doesn’t really matter. Soon, the Catholic Church and others will be forced underground anyway.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/05/EDGIV5EJQ71.DTL
[...] is a master at stirring the pot. It was just a tiny, two-sentence invective on 11/15/2008 (They Just Don’t Get It!) that in five short days generated a hundred and one heated hits amounting to over fifteen thousand [...]
[...] is a master at stirring the pot. It was just a tiny, two-sentence invective on 11/15/2008 (They Just Don’t Get It!) that in five short days generated a hundred and one heated hits amounting to over fifteen thousand [...]