2012 Presidential Campaign

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That's just it, I do understand. I just don't agree with how certain religions and people view those cells and consider them to be 'alive' from the moment of conception.

You say one thing, and then you say exactly the other.

Now part of the issue with the dude from Tennessee. Here's the big difference, a pro life person like the senator from TN, would vote for measures that restrict a woman's right to choose, based partially or in large portion to their religious beliefs. A person like me would simply say, if you feel that life begins at conception, then don't get an abortion, do what you feel is right, do what your conscience is comfortable with. I would not introduce any kind of legislation that requires someone to get an abortion. Big difference between mandating someones beliefs and mandating nothing. I'm probably not articulating that very well, but, I hope you see what I mean.

Well, if you did believe abortion was murder, wouldn't that be an abrogation of responsibility? I mean, I know its not a perfect analogy (and I don't equate the two), but if your religious beliefs were strongly anti-slavery (as many abolishionists were), would it be ok to punt your views on it because you didn't want to mandate your beliefs?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

My issue is that the extremist wing of the Republican party dominates the moderate wing on this issue. I 100% believe, without a shadow of a doubt, that any Republican president, no matter their public statements, would use Roe v. Wade as a litmus-test when appointing a SC justice. The party is so driven by its alliance with far-right socially-driven voters that they would basically be forced to.

But that has little do with people who very strongly believe that life begins at conception. Those people DO exist, and they believe in it very strongly (and not because they are anti-woman, but because they believe that strongly in the unborn's right to life - the two strongest pro-life people I have EVER met have been women) and its not just a creation of far right power brokers.

[molson]

"I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs," Obama said. (The White House quickly clarified that he meant $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar in new tax revenue.)"

OK, so now he's been on the job for 4 years, he understands the challenges of pushing his policies through the legislature. But here, he's not just stating what he'd LIKE to do, he's actually stating that it's going to happen. (which I think he was doing 4 years ago too with his various promises, but this time he has the experience of knowing exactly how difficult it is.)

When he phrases it like this and then it doesn't happen, is it really just the fault of the other party? Maybe its just semantics but it seems like an important distinction. If he has the clout/charisma/photos of naked senators, whatever, to actually accomplish something like this - than that's a real selling point as a candidate. And that's definitely what it appears he's claiming (as I think, he was also claiming 4 years ago). If he's really just saying he'd like to do this, and would, as long as Republicans agree with everything and go along with it, then what makes him different than any message board poster? In that instance, why are his hypothetical but unrealistic policy desires a selling point for a presidential candidate?

[bronconick]

A sizable percentage of the pro-life people I know in day to day life actually follow through on that belief, and I can respect them for it even if I don't think it's the best public policy. They put their time and money where their mouth is, so to speak.

Too many "pro-life" politicians author a bill to outlaw 90% of abortions and the next week vote to cut the WIC program, neo-natal funding or something else that turns all those unborn children that they cared about because of their "faith" out on the street. They deserve nothing but my scorn, especially when they start mentioning Jesus.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Too many "pro-life" politicians author a bill to outlaw 90% of abortions and the next week vote to cut the WIC program, neo-natal funding or something else that turns all those unborn children that they cared about because of their "faith" out on the street. They deserve nothing but my scorn, especially when they start mentioning Jesus.

I'm pro-life and don't believe in abortions myself - however I don't think it'd be right for me to push my beliefs onto others with regards to what 'life' is) ... especially as I don't have to carry a baby to term myself.

I also think there are LOTS of grey areas which make me reluctant to promote 'no abortion at all' as an option regardless - ie. risks to mothers life, pregnant after rape etc.

PS - To me the strangest thing is all these 'anti-abortion' people who also try and prevent sex education and contraception ... surely if you don't want abortions then preventing unwanted pregnancies is a good start?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You say one thing, and then you say exactly the other.

Where did I say anything differently? I understand that those people that feel that way, don't understand the science behind pregnancies and in all honesty, probably don't want to or refuse to. That is one of the reasons why I disagree with their stance on it. I see nothing that contradicts what I've said.

Well, if you did believe abortion was murder, wouldn't that be an abrogation of responsibility? I mean, I know its not a perfect analogy (and I don't equate the two), but if your religious beliefs were strongly anti-slavery (as many abolishionists were), would it be ok to punt your views on it because you didn't want to mandate your beliefs?

I totally see what you mean with the abolition example. I can see where things can be a conundrum for people as well. I would hope though, that they are open enough to digest as much available data as they can and make their decisions based on a rational conclusion, than because they are scared of a divine retribution. Sometimes you have to think of the larger picture and act selflessly instead of selfishly, regardless if your base stance is from a religious, moral, technical, scientific, etc...point of view. Easier said than done though.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I understand that those people that feel that way, don't understand the science behind pregnancies and in all honesty, probably don't want to or refuse to. That is one of the reasons why I disagree with their stance on it.

SMH.

I would hope though, that they are open enough to digest as much available data as they can and make their decisions based on a rational conclusion, than because they are scared of a divine retribution. Sometimes you have to think of the larger picture and act selflessly instead of selfishly, regardless if your base stance is from a religious, moral, technical, scientific, etc...point of view. Easier said than done though.

Our lives are too much ensconced in finding the "rational" answer. Most studies show that our beliefs come from our emotions and we add a rational basis for it post hoc - regardless of our positions or backgrounds.

Furthermore, people can come to vastly different "rational conclusions" based on vastly different starting points. If your starting point is "life begins at conception because the embryo is a potential human" then your rational conclusion as to what to do is far different than someone that believes something else.

And NEITHER starting point is scientic fact, but rather a moral conclusion.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

"I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs," Obama said. (The White House quickly clarified that he meant $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar in new tax revenue.)"

OK, so now he's been on the job for 4 years, he understands the challenges of pushing his policies through the legislature. But here, he's not just stating what he'd LIKE to do, he's actually stating that it's going to happen. (which I think he was doing 4 years ago too with his various promises, but this time he has the experience of knowing exactly how difficult it is.)

When he phrases it like this and then it doesn't happen, is it really just the fault of the other party? Maybe its just semantics but it seems like an important distinction. If he has the clout/charisma/photos of naked senators, whatever, to actually accomplish something like this - than that's a real selling point as a candidate. And that's definitely what it appears he's claiming (as I think, he was also claiming 4 years ago). If he's really just saying he'd like to do this, and would, as long as Republicans agree with everything and go along with it, then what makes him different than any message board poster? In that instance, why are his hypothetical but unrealistic policy desires a selling point for a presidential candidate?

The conditions are very different this time. All the Bush tax cuts will expire come Jan 1. That leaves the GOP agreeing to tax increases for the rich or tax increases for everyone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

The conditions are very different this time. All the Bush tax cuts will expire come Jan 1. That leaves the GOP agreeing to tax increases for the rich or tax increases for everyone.

Fair enough, so you would consider it an Obama failure then if he doesn't get his 2.50 deal? Somehow it wouldn't shock me if the Dems agreed to extend the tax cuts for little in return. (When's the next debt ceiling stand-off?)

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

SMH.



Our lives are too much ensconced in finding the "rational" answer. Most studies show that our beliefs come from our emotions and we add a rational basis for it post hoc - regardless of our positions or backgrounds.

Furthermore, people can come to vastly different "rational conclusions" based on vastly different starting points. If your starting point is "life begins at conception because the embryo is a potential human" then your rational conclusion as to what to do is far different than someone that believes something else.

And NEITHER starting point is scientic fact, but rather a moral conclusion.

Sounds more like a philosophical issue than anything else to me and admittedly, that does have a strong influence on people's decision making and rationalizations. I also think this is where cognitive bias and confirmation bias comes into play and you should take that into account. So whether or not it's been scientifically proven that global warming exists, that a human embryo isn't alive at a certain stage or that a fat man in a red suit flies a sled powered by magical reindeer, the best you can hope for is present the evidence to those people and hope they see the bigger picture using that new data and are making an informed decision.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Sounds more like a philosophical issue than anything else to me and admittedly, that does have a strong influence on people's decision making and rationalizations. I also think this is where cognitive bias and confirmation bias comes into play and you should take that into account.

Both sides have their own cognitive biases and confirmation biases (for example, I think an over-reliance on reason and rational bases is a product of our modernist society, and slowly but sure post-modern thinking is making inroads against this sort of ingrained thinking). And, of course, that leads the point that people can disagree on the conclusions while having the same issue presented to them.

So whether or not it's been scientifically proven that global warming exists, that a human embryo isn't alive at a certain stage or that a fat man in a red suit flies a sled powered by magical reindeer, the best you can hope for is present the evidence to those people and hope they see the bigger picture using that new data and are making an informed decision.

The problem is that
a) you believe it is scientifically possible to prove that an embryo is a human life at some certain
b) you believe that those who disagree with you are de facto anti-science and/or refuse to consider the data

Both are massive mistakes (and perhaps evidence of your own cognitive biases), IMO. It also makes people on the other side believe you are talking down to them.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Both sides have their own cognitive biases and confirmation biases (for example, I think an over-reliance on reason and rational bases is a product of our modernist society, and slowly but sure post-modern thinking is making inroads against this sort of ingrained thinking). And, of course, that leads the point that people can disagree on the conclusions while having the same issue presented to them.



The problem is that
a) you believe it is scientifically possible to prove that an embryo is a human life at some certain
b) you believe that those who disagree with you are de facto anti-science and/or refuse to consider the data

Both are massive mistakes (and perhaps evidence of your own cognitive biases), IMO. It also makes people on the other side believe you are talking down to them.

Heaven forbid we depend on *gasp* reason and rational conclusions.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Both sides have their own cognitive biases and confirmation biases (for example, I think an over-reliance on reason and rational bases is a product of our modernist society, and slowly but sure post-modern thinking is making inroads against this sort of ingrained thinking). And, of course, that leads the point that people can disagree on the conclusions while having the same issue presented to them.

Oh yes, absolutely, both sides do have their cognitive/confirmation biases. I think it's probably one of the most difficult things to get past. I'd be shocked if there was even one person that's not guilty of doing it. I also think that thinking in terms of absolutes can also be a problem at times. There are things that are just black and white, but, there's tons more things that live in the gray areas, but, I think that's where trying to analyze available data helps.

The problem is that
a) you believe it is scientifically possible to prove that an embryo is a human life at some certain
b) you believe that those who disagree with you are de facto anti-science and/or refuse to consider the data

Both are massive mistakes (and perhaps evidence of your own cognitive biases), IMO. It also makes people on the other side believe you are talking down to them.

My answers:
a - The cells are composed of human DNA. At all stages, it's "human", whether it's a mass of cells, an embryo, or a fetus, but, I have a feeling my definition of human and yours aren't the same thing in this instance? The core of my argument is, when it's actually alive, not if it's human. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

b - I believe that certain people (as opposed to everyone that disagrees with me) are, in fact, defacto anti-science and/or refuse to consider that data. You are not one of those people. The senator from TN though, I'm guilty as charged on that one.

I sincerely apologize if you feel that I was talking down to you, that is definitely not what I was intentionally doing. If anything, I respect you and your point of view and opinions, more than a lot of people on this board, even if we don't agree on everything.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The problem that Pro-Life people have with easier access to contraceptives is the mixed signal it sends. That's why most preach abstinence when it comes to sex.

There is no mixed signal. They are different choices. Having sex and not having sex are different choices from having sex safely and having sex without protection/birth control. Not every unwanted pregnancy is a 14 year old girl who shouldn't be having sex.

It's like saying cars shouldn't have airbags and seatbelts because people should just avoid driving. You seem to agree with me on this, I'm just saying that the pro-life movement takes stances that increase the number of abortions. It's fair to ask whether they actually care about abortion or whether this is anger over women having sex.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm going to actually slightly defend this person. I think he really looked through and into the position and this wasn't a knee jerk response. From the reports on this when he said it, he said it "tearfully". As in, this wasn't an easy response for him - but he cares so much for life that even in cases of rape, he would want that unborn life cared for.

It seemed like a case of while he knows it would cause pain & isn't at all an ideal situation, protecting the unborn life is more important.

I actually applaud him for being so unvarnishedly honest about it, especially since it appeared he struggled with the decision.

Originally Posted by Richard Mourdock on the death penalty

Q: What is your view on the Death Penalty?I support the death penalty at the federal level for treason, murder, and other serious crimes.

Doesn't seem to value human life too much he's OK with the death penalty for treason, murder, and other serious crimes. I'm assuming having an abortion when your life is not in danger would be a serious crime. What other crimes is he OK with the death penalty. I doubt he was crying talking about the death penalty.

I may not agree with one's position on the death penalty, but I'll respect your position if you have some logic. His logic is that there are occasions where it is God's will that a woman who is raped becomes pregnant. However, that is the extent of God's will. God had nothing to do with preventing the rape, allowed it to happen, the interjected his will to make the woman pregnant. If that's your God, that sounds awful. If God is responsible for the pregnancy, he should be responsible for the rape.

If your position is that both the rape and the pregnancy are God's will and and that we simply don't understand God's reasons, I'll accept that. You're not using selecting justice to choose what is God's will and what is human will.

Then he compounded his lunancy by coming out and saying he was sorry if you misunderstood him. No one misunderstood him -- he said pregnancies from rape was God's will, and he stands by that. He's not sorry for what he believes, he's sorry you don't agree with him. Why say you're sorry if you don't mean it?

Oh, I forgot ... you just commented a horrendous gaffe in an election year. That's what he's sorry about.

[kcchief19]

Regarding Trump, I'd give anything if Warren Buffet said he'd give $5 million to the charity of Romney's choice if he'll release his tax returns from the last 10 years. If Romney doesn't, the $5 million goes to Planned Parenthood.

[Young Drachma]

Who's Getting Our Votes: Reason Writers' 2012 Presidential Picks - Reason.com

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is no mixed signal. They are different choices. Having sex and not having sex are different choices from having sex safely and having sex without protection/birth control. Not every unwanted pregnancy is a 14 year old girl who shouldn't be having sex.

It's like saying cars shouldn't have airbags and seatbelts because people should just avoid driving. You seem to agree with me on this, I'm just saying that the pro-life movement takes stances that increase the number of abortions. It's fair to ask whether they actually care about abortion or whether this is anger over women having sex.

Many Pro-Life people are Pro-Life for religious reasons. To them, pre-marital sex is a sin that should be stopped. To them, handing out contraceptives is saying that it is ok to have pre-marital sex. Its not like we're talking about 20 somethings, they have access to contraceptives.

[Buccaneer]

Ok, since I played a part in starting the latest debate, I'll state exactly where I am coming from (borrowed from a fellow brother in Christ) and to lend support to my long time friend, Imran.

It simply comes down to believing that the Word of God is sovereign and has authority in our lives. For those that do believe as such, the Scriptures are clear on whom we should depend upon, especially for difficult and traumatic experiences. If you do not believe in the Word of God or even in God, then there is no basis for discussion upon this premise. That what makes those basing life's decision upon God and His Words so different than the secular world, as well as ridiculed.

Here are the words copied from a blog since I cannot say it better. "Rape is a horrible and traumatic event in the life of any woman who has suffered its indignity. It is the forcible act of sexual intercourse against the will of a woman. Should she become pregnant, not only must she bear the memory of the rape, but she also carries the child of the rapist. The question, then, is whether or not a woman should abort the baby that is the result of a rape? This is a very difficult question to answer. After all, it is a highly emotional issue. Of course, I am a man and cannot possibly relate nor understand what it would mean to be in the place of a woman whose body has been invaded in such a way. I can only speak from what I know and what I believe about the sanctity of life that is derived from God's word."

And this is the gist of what I was alluding to last night. "In my opinion, a baby that is a product of rape should not be killed. It is not the fault of the baby that it has been brought into the world. Why should the life of the baby be sacrificed because of the indignity suffered against the woman? Yes, I know rape is horrible and that it is wrong. I know the woman has the right of self-protection and emotional security. But I also know that love is greater than all these things, and few things on earth have greater love than a mother for her child."

In the end, we can only rely on God's grace and mercy in dealing with such a terrible trial (using the example of what would happen if your wife was impregnated by a rapist). All we can do is this, "Jesus showed me His great love by sacrificing His life for me, a sinner. I deserve to be judged harshly by Him, yet He is gracious and kind. I too must be gracious and kind in response. Therefore, I would keep any child given to me and raise him or her as my own, with all my love and dedication....by God's grace."

[bhlloy]

As much as I disagree with that, at least it's honest and consistent unlike some politicians who are pro-life just to the point that it's politically expedient for them and they don't start to lose moderate voters because of it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Heaven forbid we depend on *gasp* reason and rational conclusions.

I know you meant this as some sort of sarcastic pushback, but I agree with it un-ironically.

That is the issue. We worship at the altar of "reason", a product of a hyper-Enlightenment philosophy that states we can determine everything objectively through the use of reason. It has led to a lot of problems when someone who has determined something "objectively" through reason runs into someone who has determined something entirely different "objectively" through reason. Naturally, two objective truths that are diametrically opposed cannot stand and the other person must be "wrong" - even in the case of things that have no real objective value.

Hence, people are getting back to the understanding that reason isn't the be all, end all, and that our emotions are just as important, if not more so. Our subjective feelings determine our beliefs much more than thinking through the problem and, in fact, in the vast majority of occasions we decide something by "our gut" and then rationalize it later. Subjectivity is more acknowledged and the limits of "by reason alone" are pointed out.

Btw, this movement I've described is called post-modernism.

Originally Posted by JediKooter

My answers:
a - The cells are composed of human DNA. At all stages, it's "human", whether it's a mass of cells, an embryo, or a fetus, but, I have a feeling my definition of human and yours aren't the same thing in this instance? The core of my argument is, when it's actually alive, not if it's human. I apologize if I wasn't clear on that.

But life isn't really subject to a scientific determination here. Embryos are, of course, alive - heck, viruses are alive. Amoebas are alive. The question is whether they are human (after all, we kill plenty of alive things without care).

I sincerely apologize if you feel that I was talking down to you, that is definitely not what I was intentionally doing. If anything, I respect you and your point of view and opinions, more than a lot of people on this board, even if we don't agree on everything.

What I'm trying to point out is that it can be easy to take your comments and to feel one is being talked down to. Now, as I've stated, I don't believe that human life starts at conception - but I can see where some would see you tone as thinking those that do aren't interested in science.

I don't think you meant to talk down, but just be cognizant of how it may come across.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I may not agree with one's position on the death penalty, but I'll respect your position if you have some logic. His logic is that there are occasions where it is God's will that a woman who is raped becomes pregnant. However, that is the extent of God's will. God had nothing to do with preventing the rape, allowed it to happen, the interjected his will to make the woman pregnant. If that's your God, that sounds awful. If God is responsible for the pregnancy, he should be responsible for the rape.

If you believe in a God who allows free will (as I do), then God will allow people to do some horrendous things to each other, even though he'd rather we not do so, so that we have the gift of free will (basically free will is so precious and important, it is worth all the shit we do to each other). However, if the person became pregnant, then God intends for the child to be born and perhaps turn something good out of the evil that is rape.

I think Bucc said it very, very well and much better that I could have.

How sovereignty and free will interact is something I cannot know for sure and many big minds have discussed this for a looong while (Calvin vs. Arminius & their followers is the most pronounced battle).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Ok, since I played a part in starting the latest debate, I'll state exactly where I am coming from (borrowed from a fellow brother in Christ) and to lend support to my long time friend, Imran.

It simply comes down to believing that the Word of God is sovereign and has authority in our lives. For those that do believe as such, the Scriptures are clear on whom we should depend upon, especially for difficult and traumatic experiences. If you do not believe in the Word of God or even in God, then there is no basis for discussion upon this premise. That what makes those basing life's decision upon God and His Words so different than the secular world, as well as ridiculed.

Here are the words copied from a blog since I cannot say it better. "Rape is a horrible and traumatic event in the life of any woman who has suffered its indignity. It is the forcible act of sexual intercourse against the will of a woman. Should she become pregnant, not only must she bear the memory of the rape, but she also carries the child of the rapist. The question, then, is whether or not a woman should abort the baby that is the result of a rape? This is a very difficult question to answer. After all, it is a highly emotional issue. Of course, I am a man and cannot possibly relate nor understand what it would mean to be in the place of a woman whose body has been invaded in such a way. I can only speak from what I know and what I believe about the sanctity of life that is derived from God's word."

And this is the gist of what I was alluding to last night. "In my opinion, a baby that is a product of rape should not be killed. It is not the fault of the baby that it has been brought into the world. Why should the life of the baby be sacrificed because of the indignity suffered against the woman? Yes, I know rape is horrible and that it is wrong. I know the woman has the right of self-protection and emotional security. But I also know that love is greater than all these things, and few things on earth have greater love than a mother for her child."

In the end, we can only rely on God's grace and mercy in dealing with such a terrible trial (using the example of what would happen if your wife was impregnated by a rapist). All we can do is this, "Jesus showed me His great love by sacrificing His life for me, a sinner. I deserve to be judged harshly by Him, yet He is gracious and kind. I too must be gracious and kind in response. Therefore, I would keep any child given to me and raise him or her as my own, with all my love and dedication....by God's grace."

But that doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on others. Others should have the choice to follow your beliefs or not. Or are you not confident enough in the attractiveness of your beliefs on their merits that you have to force them on people?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

But that doesn't give you the right to impose your beliefs on others. Others should have the choice to follow your beliefs or not. Or are you not confident enough in the attractiveness of your beliefs on their merits that you have to force them on people?

Interesting one of the reasons Obama pushed for national health care is because his faith (and mine, btw) guides him to take care of the oppressed and impoverished. Why should his faith give him the right to impose his beliefs on others by violating their rights not to have the product of their labors taken from them? Why does he have to force them on people?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I know you meant this as some sort of sarcastic pushback, but I agree with it un-ironically.

That is the issue. We worship at the altar of "reason", a product of a hyper-Enlightenment philosophy that states we can determine everything objectively through the use of reason. It has led to a lot of problems when someone who has determined something "objectively" through reason runs into someone who has determined something entirely different "objectively" through reason. Naturally, two objective truths that are diametrically opposed cannot stand and the other person must be "wrong" - even in the case of things that have no real objective value.

Hence, people are getting back to the understanding that reason isn't the be all, end all, and that our emotions are just as important, if not more so. Our subjective feelings determine our beliefs much more than thinking through the problem and, in fact, in the vast majority of occasions we decide something by "our gut" and then rationalize it later. Subjectivity is more acknowledged and the limits of "by reason alone" are pointed out.

Btw, this movement I've described is called post-modernism.

If you refuse to hold discussions in the realm of reason and rational thought then there's no basis for discussion - you're no better than the Taliban or the Salafists, forcing your interpretation of your beliefs onto others who may or may not believe it.

[Solecismic]

One question you could ask is whether this cluster of human cells is an independent human, rather than still a part of the mother. That could be a justification for someone who values human life above all else to accept abortion as a choice without it conflicting with a moral code.

Scientifically, the concept of "human" is too vague to offer as a solution to this debate. What makes something independently human, other than the DNA?

We share about 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. What makes our lives more important than theirs?

I have trouble with the religious arguments, because they rely on scripture being taken as fact and applied to those who don't have faith. You can have faith that there's a process in which a soul is applied to a fetus. That's great. But the concept of a soul and the concept of a god having the power to create and apply it are not provable. If people want to base their lives on these concepts, they're welcome to do so. But why be so angry when others don't? It's the refusal to accept that people who are pro-choice can have a strong moral code that's troubling to me.

[CrimsonFox]

heh. I think we've got an answer.

God Distances Self From Christian Right | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have trouble with the religious arguments, because they rely on scripture being taken as fact and applied to those who don't have faith. You can have faith that there's a process in which a soul is applied to a fetus. That's great. But the concept of a soul and the concept of a god having the power to create and apply it are not provable. If people want to base their lives on these concepts, they're welcome to do so. But why be so angry when others don't? It's the refusal to accept that people who are pro-choice can have a strong moral code that's troubling to me.

Well said Jim.

[cartman]

Maybe this is why The Donald is pulling his stunt, to keep his name in the paper for that rather than this: Trump ousted as manager at Trump Place building

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

If you refuse to hold discussions in the realm of reason and rational thought then there's no basis for discussion - you're no better than the Taliban or the Salafists, forcing your interpretation of your beliefs onto others who may or may not believe it.

Fun . Is this how your rational discussion ends, with name calling? Isn't that a "logical fallacy" .

If you don't understand the limits of reason and all the philosophical work done on this issue for... oh, over 100 years (ie, since Nietszche - but ESPECIALLY since Foucault and Derrida which is more like over 50 years ago), then how can you really engage in any in depth conversation at all if you are worshiping at the altar of reason and won't hear anything else?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I have trouble with the religious arguments, because they rely on scripture being taken as fact and applied to those who don't have faith. You can have faith that there's a process in which a soul is applied to a fetus. That's great. But the concept of a soul and the concept of a god having the power to create and apply it are not provable. If people want to base their lives on these concepts, they're welcome to do so. But why be so angry when others don't? It's the refusal to accept that people who are pro-choice can have a strong moral code that's troubling to me.

I don't see anyone being "angry" at anyone aside from the non-religious folk being angry at the religious folk . I don't think either myself or Bucc said that anyone didn't have a strong moral code here. Of course people may be angry when others don't share their moral code - but that isn't limited to religious people speaking about non-religious (ie, ask secular folk who got mad at, say, the Bush Administration for torturing people).

[molson]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

heh. I think we've got an answer.

God Distances Self From Christian Right | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Ha, I'm seeing that sentiment in the form of various memes from moderate or liberal Christian friends on facebook lately. I know plenty of ELCA Lutherans who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Sometimes the rhetoric of certain fundamentalist political Christians put them in a tough spot to where people assume things about them, but Christianity and certainly spirituality and faith come in all flavors.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by molson

Ha, I'm seeing that sentiment in the form of various memes from moderate or liberal Christian friends on facebook lately. I know plenty of ELCA Lutherans who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Sometimes the rhetoric of certain fundamentalist political Christians put them in a tough spot to where people assume things about them, but Christianity and certainly spirituality and faith come in all flavors.

very well said. I believe in God and have been somewhat religious at times and the last person I'm going to listen to as far as "what God wants" is someone who isn't God.

rather when someone says "Jesus" and "God", I often find that is all they are saying. "Jesus". Well "Jesus what" "What kind of Jesus" "Do you know anything about Jesus?" "I Mean what exactly were the things Jesus taught and lived and spoke about.". Hate definitely isn't one of those things. Nor greed. NOr destruction. I find it troubling that the people that speak in God's name with such hatred in their message.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Fun . Is this how your rational discussion ends, with name calling? Isn't that a "logical fallacy" .

If you don't understand the limits of reason and all the philosophical work done on this issue for... oh, over 100 years (ie, since Nietszche - but ESPECIALLY since Foucault and Derrida which is more like over 50 years ago), then how can you really engage in any in depth conversation at all if you are worshiping at the altar of reason and won't hear anything else?

LMAO. I went to a Jesuit college. I took multiple classes around this - including one full-year class where we spent 1 semester reading the Bible and one reading philosophers and reconciling/discussing them. I have no problem understanding the limits of reason and the philosophical work done on it. But your side of the discussion cannot deny the complete applicability of reason.

And I stand by my second statement, which wasn't name-calling BTW. I didn't say you were a Taliban. I just said there was no difference. And there isn't. The only difference between trying to legislate Christian morality and the Salafists in Egypt (the Taliban I admit as non-democratic are a stretch) is the source text you're trying to legislate from.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

heh. I think we've got an answer.

God Distances Self From Christian Right | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

pretty much expected until the last line:

At press time, God’s son, Jesus Christ, offered a countering view and confirmed he strongly believes pregnancies resulting from rape are, in fact, God’s gift

har

[Buccaneer]

If you allow me to expand/clarify on one other point from last night, I want to talk about the phrase "sanctity of life".

This comes out of what King David wrote in one of his Psalms "You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother's womb. Thank you for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous--how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." (NLT)

God places a special value on human life and that life deserves protection. God commands His people to protect and defend innocent human life, esp. in every stage of development and need. No one should be excluded.

Throughout history this biblical view of the sanctity of all human life has faced opposition - most notably from those who advocate a "quality of life" viewpoint, suggesting that human life must posses certain qualities and abilities before it can be considered truly valuable and worthy of life sustenance. According to this distorted humanistic view, if the unborn child, the handicapped infant, or the elderly person does not posses these qualities, that individual is not entitled to the protection which Scriptures would give.

The value of human life does not depend upon the person's functional abilities or independent viability but is assured because of the image of God which is found in every human life. God calls upon us to extend our care and compassion to every life He has created, in every stage of development and in every need. (from NKJV study bible)

Challenging words that are hard to live up to (esp. since we are all sinners and fall short) but this provides the foundation for the sanctity of life belief.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Radii

pretty much expected until the last line:

har

The great thing about a trinity is that means there's still the Holy Spirit to cast the tie breaking vote.

SI

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Interesting one of the reasons Obama pushed for national health care is because his faith (and mine, btw) guides him to take care of the oppressed and impoverished. Why should his faith give him the right to impose his beliefs on others by violating their rights not to have the product of their labors taken from them? Why does he have to force them on people?

He didn't impose his beliefs. He offered a policy, won an election and passed it through the representatives of the people.

[JPhillips]

Benghazi Suspect Killed in Cairo

I expected things would happen ala the Munich perpetrators.

[molson]

What if someone is just inspired by their faith or individuals in their church, to say, help poor people, and from that they construct a practical policy that addresses real life challenges in attempt to address those goals. Is that allowed? I think the line there is pretty grey.

Edit: But as far as I can tell the general rule is - if you're inspired by faith, religion, or spirituality to a position someone disagrees with, that that person considers that view invalid. But as long as the position is "correct", then it's fine for it to be based on those things.

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The great thing about a trinity is that means there's still the Holy Spirit to cast the tie breaking vote.

SI

This made me fall over laughing. You win.

Funny religious humor.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

What if someone is just inspired by their faith or individuals in their church, to say, help poor people, and from that they construct a practical policy that addresses real life challenges in attempt to address those goals. Is that allowed? I think the line there is pretty grey.

Edit: But as far as I can tell the general rule is - if you're inspired by faith, religion, or spirituality to a position someone disagrees with, that that person considers that view invalid. But as long as the position is "correct", then it's fine for it to be based on those things.

Isn't that how a democracy works?

[SirFozzie]

Fair is fair, I call it out on the GOP side, I call it out on the Democratic Party side:

Moran's son resigns after video shows him discussing how to cast fake ballots - POLITICO.com

Considering this is his SON showing how to cast fake votes, if he was in my district, I'd very specifically vote against him.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Fair is fair, I call it out on the GOP side, I call it out on the Democratic Party side:

Moran's son resigns after video shows him discussing how to cast fake ballots - POLITICO.com

Considering this is his SON showing how to cast fake votes, if he was in my district, I'd very specifically vote against him.

All might not be as it seems here:

The video, released by conservative activist James O’Keefe earlier Wednesday

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Isn't that how a democracy works?

Absolutely. I think people's policy opinions or votes are equally valid whether they come from organized religion, personal spirituality, their parents, an experience they had, a tv show they watched one time, or whatever. If that's all we're talking, votes, and and which of those sources of values have the most subscribers to where they can push those policies, than great, no disagreement there. I just disagree with the sentiment that positions are necessarily more valid if they come from the latter value sources as opposed to the first two.

[JPhillips]

I don't think Mourdock isn't entitled to his viewpoint. I think he's profoundly wrong and offensive. The fact that his belief is grounded in his religious belief is immaterial to me.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Fair is fair, I call it out on the GOP side, I call it out on the Democratic Party side:

Moran's son resigns after video shows him discussing how to cast fake ballots - POLITICO.com

Considering this is his SON showing how to cast fake votes, if he was in my district, I'd very specifically vote against him.

SI

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Radii

pretty much expected until the last line:



har

'Mother Mary Was Essentially Raped,' Mourdock Says While Digging Self Into Deeper Hole | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by molson

Ha, I'm seeing that sentiment in the form of various memes from moderate or liberal Christian friends on facebook lately. I know plenty of ELCA Lutherans who are pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Sometimes the rhetoric of certain fundamentalist political Christians put them in a tough spot to where people assume things about them, but Christianity and certainly spirituality and faith come in all flavors.

ELCA right here! I wonder if I'm one of those... are we Facebook friends?

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

LMAO. I went to a Jesuit college. I took multiple classes around this - including one full-year class where we spent 1 semester reading the Bible and one reading philosophers and reconciling/discussing them. I have no problem understanding the limits of reason and the philosophical work done on it. But your side of the discussion cannot deny the complete applicability of reason.

And I stand by my second statement, which wasn't name-calling BTW. I didn't say you were a Taliban. I just said there was no difference. And there isn't. The only difference between trying to legislate Christian morality and the Salafists in Egypt (the Taliban I admit as non-democratic are a stretch) is the source text you're trying to legislate from.

Why can I not deny the "complete applicability of reason". I don't believe reason's overarching applicability. We believe way too much in the healing power of reason and have in many cases lost the point. I have never argued that reason does not matter - but putting our entire faith in reason is a mistake and done far too often. And we must always realize where we reason from and where we reason to are subjected to all sorts of social and cultural conditions and assumptions - whether Christian or not.

As for the no difference between the moral legislation between the Taliban and Christian moralists (which, btw, include William Wilberforce, Fredrick Douglas, etc), I'm sure someone like Jon can come in and compare liberal moral legislation as being akin to the Taliban... and if your definition is legislating morality, then yeah - I guess he'd be right there.

You know, aside from the whole Democracy thing. I don't recall the Taliban calling for a vote.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

God places a special value on human life and that life deserves protection. God commands His people to protect and defend innocent human life, esp. in every stage of development and need. No one should be excluded.

Throughout history this biblical view of the sanctity of all human life has faced opposition - most notably from those who advocate a "quality of life" viewpoint, suggesting that human life must posses certain qualities and abilities before it can be considered truly valuable and worthy of life sustenance. According to this distorted humanistic view, if the unborn child, the handicapped infant, or the elderly person does not posses these qualities, that individual is not entitled to the protection which Scriptures would give.

And that is the interesting point you bring up. A Christian may approach the view point the candidate in question has come to because he believes so strongly in the sanctity and dignity of human life. The question becomes without this starting point (not necessarily a religious starting point, but most common there), reason can lead us to points of view that would sanction the termination of non-productive life. The ethicist Peter Singer, for instance, believes that termination of a newborn should be allowed AFTER birth, but before a period of time they can develop rationality and autonomy - done out of a rational argument.

From wiki:
"Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"[24]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."[25]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He didn't impose his beliefs. He offered a policy, won an election and passed it through the representatives of the people.

Exactly. That's the point I'm making, but DT doesn't think that's good enough.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Many Pro-Life people are Pro-Life for religious reasons. To them, pre-marital sex is a sin that should be stopped. To them, handing out contraceptives is saying that it is ok to have pre-marital sex. Its not like we're talking about 20 somethings, they have access to contraceptives.

They are still separate issues. Just because you don't believe in pre-marital sex doesn't mean you have to be against safety in sex. I don't ride motorcycles and find them dangerous, but I'm not in favor of banning helmets out of spite. And their stance on contraceptives doesn't just apply to unmarried individuals, it applies to everyone. Married people use birth control also.

Whatever mental gymnastics they use to justify the stance, their position still leads to more abortions. Something they claim to be against.