Open Thread
A few deep thoughts to get you rolling:
The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly - that is what each of us is here for. Oscar Wilde
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Mahatma Gandhi, "Non-Violence in Peace and War"
What else is love but understanding and rejoicing in the fact that another person lives, acts, and experiences otherwise than we do…?
Friedrich Nietzsche
What's on your mind?
posted by RedStateExile @ 07:19
37 comments
37 Comments:
My self-development tells me that I'd rather be doing this than work.
There were so many good quotes that spoke to me but I had to limit myself. I tend to get a little longwinded after all.
We're having some good debates on a couple of other threads, but they are getting lost down there (or at least I'm getting tired of hunting for them) so I thought I'd try to move things up here.
Let me follow suit and pull up our other discussion as well:
lovin' it said...
If by culture you mean sombraros, belly dancing, and chia tea, then I'm all for multiculturalism. I consider myself a lover of all those things. ;-)
When I think of culture, I tend to mean the more substantial stuff, like civil liberties, limits on governmental power, the rule of law, and the like. On those issues I have no desire to learn from others. I'm proud to say that western civilization has discovered the best ordering of society that's existed in the world since the garden of eden. There's nothing worth importing from others in these areas.
08:54
RedStateExile said...
I have no desire to learn from others.
Really???
It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err.
-Mahatma Gandhi
Learning from others doesn't make you weak, but it can keep you from making their mistakes.
09:47
I think belly dancing is pretty cool too and chai tea is a nice alternative to coffee, but if I shut my eyes and ears to the knowledge that other cultures treat women inhumanely then how will I ever know that is a behavior I never want to see immulated in my own country? How will I know that I never want us to go down those same roads if I never listen to the horror stories of the people from those cultures?
Learning about other people's trials and tribulations doesn't mean we support what happened to them, but hopefully we can learn from it so they never have to face it again here.
I didn't dodge. Certainly, you can read through a little sarcasm to see that I'm not pro-abortion, as you call it.
But this is always a right-wing fall back dodge when arguments are lost. You can't deal with the fact that there aren't defined lines of black and white for all situations and that you haven't been able to control people's bodies and choices, so you change the language.
If you think I'm pro-abortion just because I don't think a woman should give up control of her body to the government, then this argument may have already been over before it ever got started.
"If you are against the death penalty because you are afraid an innocent person might be executed but willing to allow legal abortion you are a hypocrite of the worst kind. "
If one believes a fetus is a person, then one is an idiot of the worst kind, willing to allow political nonsense promulgated by anti-American scum of the James Dobson variety to replace reasoned, scientific observation. One may be well-read and capable of interesting conversation, but rational thought? It knows such a person not.
Do you believe that abortion is immoral and should be illegal, or do you condone the murder of preborn innocents as a private choice?
Answer this question for me and maybe I can answer you.
"When does a fertizlied egg acquire a soul?"
I'm not trying to duck the question - I don't think God's amused by 1,000,000 abortions per year either. As far as I'm concerned, it's symptomatic of systemic problems in the country.
Dorsano - Your argument against the death penalty sounds well thought out and reasonable, whether or not I agree with it.
To be honest - I never thought deeply about the death penalty. I was never "against" it - especially when a cop is killed, an act of treason is committed, an act of "terrorism" - or the death penalties handed down during the Nuremburg trials.
I always valued the life of an inocent person above most requirements to "punish" - I know that.
Something you said in one of your early comments prompted me to think about it. I'm not sure what.
It must have been time for me to think about it. I'm glad Callie indulged me and allowed me to think out loud on one of her comment threads.
And I appreciate you taking the time to discuss it.
One other way to look at it is, if I were dying of kidney failure, the state doesn't have the right to compel my brother to donate one.
Should fetuses not only have equal rights to other people, but superior rights? No one argues that any entity other than a fetus has the right to be linked to another person for their essential life support. Note here I said "right".
I am not going to pay tribute to the anti-abortionist idea (commonly insinuated) that women want to have abortions as a general rule.
Abortion is only "murder" if denial of life bodily support between adults is murder, which it isn't.
Instead of focusing on women murdering children and trying to find a way to further victimize them and hurt them in our society, why not consider the root issues that lead to excessive pregnancies, especially teenage pregnancies, and conception from rape and incest?
It's easy, lovin' it, for you to sit there and look at the issues in black and white, but consider the ramifications of pointing the finger of murder at women, who are just as innocent.
A teenage girl who became pregnant because she was raped repeatedly by her father doesn't deserve the death penalty or even incarceration because you want to point the finger of murder at her, especially when there are laws out there on the books trying to force her to tell the same person who raped her that she doesn't want to have their baby.
Can't you see the consequences of only thinking in black and white?
What if the baby is born? Then what? Born into a world of abuse where his/her father is also his/her grandfather!! OMG!
How about seeing some solutions from your side? Instead of telling a young woman like this, abortion is murder. What else can she do? Adoption? Okay, how is that going to work in a home of abuse? There are all kinds of issues involved that you may have never thought about that need to be dealt with, but these are those gray areas you don't like.
BTW-I'm adopted so I have a little different insight on this. My life (or not) could have turned out quite differently. Fortunately, for me, it was easy to adopt out white girls in Alabama. Not everyone is that lucky, but that's a whole different gray area in this discussion.
I don't care if it's .00001% of the abortions were a result of rape or incest. That's an issue to be dealt with and not ignored.
As for adoption, I don't think you really know what you are talking about. Why are you even talking about Americans adopting Chinese and Mongolian children? Those aren't the ones we should be concerned about adopting.
I knew this high and mighty single Christian woman once that paid $10K each for two Chinese babies once. She could have gone through the state and adopted kids for free. In some states, they even PAY you to foster and adopt kids.
So, what's stopping these pro-life folks from jumping on the adoption bandwagon? Try answering that question for me.
"as-colo - Your argument is morally weak and legally indefensible."
Actually, it's legally VERY defensible. No state require a person to risk his life or violate her bodily integrity to save another's, except perhaps in professional, not personal, situations where a person has sworn an oath to do so.
It might be counter-intuitive to an anti-abortionists sensibilities, but mothers are also not required by the state to save the lives of their living children if to do so she would have to risk her own.
To refuse to run into a burning building, for example, to save someone, even your own family, isn't "negligent homicide" unless you're a fireman.
By definition, pregnancy is an inherently life-threatening event, being that pregnancy induces bodily changes that put the mother at risk, such as runaway high blood pressure, etc.
Being that motherhood isn't a profession, and no oath is signed, where does the state get off saying that women should be REQUIRED to risk their lives because the fetus has a higher right than any of the rest of us out here in the world of the living?
There is no similar situation in law that I know of where a person is required to share their BODY (keyword, here) with another to sustain that person's life.
This situation of 1). Requiring that life threatening risks be taken and 2). Sharing one's body with another person puts the issue of forbidding abortion in a distinctly different class than, say, not getting someone care in a negligent manner.
I therefore totally reject your counter-examples as being analogous ones.
At the other end of the spectrum, if your father has a stroke and you just let him lie there and die instead of making every possible effort to get him medical care, you will be guilty of negligent homicide.
Sounds like we need Medicare for everyone.
dorsano - I prefer not to engage in philosophical speculation. Human life is sacred.
That's philosphical statement right there :)
How come you can make them and I can't? Why is it sacred? Because it has a soul?
Except you miss one very important point. No pro-life person has ever suggested that a woman whose life or physical health was threatened by her pregnancy should be required to carry to term. Of course abortion should be legal when it's medically necessary to protect the life of the mother.
You might want to check the case currently being heard by the Supreme Court.
Callie - You should care.
What part of it's "an issue to be dealt with" didn't you understand?
I'm talking about root issues and problems, not sitting here piously at a computer pointing a finger at people assuming we know where they stand.
Like you assume, I'm going to answer "no" to your question. Why? Because you think I'm some big ugly lesbian baby killer? Because you think I don't want women to have children?
Maybe people should be more willing to adopt older kids
Well, at least you FINALLY mention a solution!!! But do you REALLY think that they suddenly were placed in the system when they were teenagers?
No, they were put there when they were babies and nobody took them home. You seriously think ALL babies could be placed in a home??? Think again.
I had a friend that just adopted a four year old African American boy. He started fostering him at two years old and the agency was worried that he may never get adopted because he was getting too old. He had already be shuffled from foster home to foster home to foster home. Plus, he medical and behavioral issues that needed special care. Nobody wanted to deal with him, except my friend. This kid got lucky, but many other don't.
Don't believe me??? Go to one of these agencies, ask to look at their books of foster kids, and see for yourself. See how long they've been in the system.
Then, either offer some solutions or get off the discussion because you don't know what you're talking about.
as-colo
Sounds like a pretty good argument to me. I never really thought of it that way.
That isn't speculative, we all support that position.
Agreed.
but the burden of proof falls on the one who wishes to use that as a defense of killing.
That doesn't follow logically. The conclusion assumes that a fertilized egg is sacred presumably by virtue of it's genetic potental to become a self aware human being.
You seem to be taking my argument seriously so I'll tell you what I believe.
I don't know when a fertilized egg acquires a soul - I know what the Catholic church instructs me to believe.
I believe that people of faith, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever and thoughtful people of no faith
can come to different rightful conclusions about this.
I'll never have to make that choice for myself but I can't imagine a circumstance where, if I were a woman, I'd choose to have an abortion - and my wife feels pretty much the same way.
She'd rather die if it meant she could give birth to a healthy child - though since we had three at the time, I'm grateful she agreed to give that decision more thought as her last pregnancy progressed.
If I could wave a magic wand and write national legislation that would put an end to this debate,
I wouldn't allow ANY abortions after the 16th week of pregnancy except to preserve the health of the woman unless the woman could convince a judge that she had good reason not to terminate the pregnacy earlier.
During that 16 weeks, I would place no restrictions on the woman - she wouldn't need a permission slip from her husband or parents - no intervention by the state at all.
And I would make sure that every woman had access to confidential and safe facilities whether they could afford them or not.
Explain how your position is morally any different then the Pol Pots, Emperor Hiroshitos and Hitlers of the world.
That's an old rhetorical trick called syncrisis. You already know it apparently (though maybe not by that name) since you've used it but others can find more here if they click on syncrisis.
Part of the trick involves finding one attribute in common between an opponent's position and something disgusting and using that as the basis to imply that the two are equal.
It's like "reasoning" A dog has a tail, an elephant has a tail - a dog is an elephant.
I think it's plain how "my position" differs. If you're interested in discussing it further,
why don't you restate my position, to demonstrate that you understand it,
and then explain how it's different.
Or the world could "reason" like you do and observe that al-Quida uses Islam to build and consolidate it's power in the Muslim world just like the GOP uses Christianity to turn out evangelical voters and deliver the margin of victory in elections - thus the two are equal.
The number of teenage pregnancies and children abandoned to foster care has skyrocketed since the legalization of abortion. Legal abortion hasn't solved the problem of unwanted children.
Ummm, then doesn't that mean that they aren't having abortions but giving their children up???
I'm still waiting for offers of solutions from you instead of finger pointing.
Bring it on. Otherwise, you have nothing but empty rhetoric and bile. If that's the case, I'm done with this "conversation".
Not even close lovinit - try again if you care to.
Hiring is one of the most difficult things a company has to do. Once those with a lack of skills or experience are weeded out, even a rigourous interview process is only marginly effective at identifying good people.
I hope for your family's sake that you've got a good job and can manage to keep it
because you've raised red flags brighter than I've ever seen in over 30 years.
SIGH...
I've stated my position using facts
Well, I went back through the posts on this thread and I don't see a source.
You're all over the place. It would be nice if you picked a topic and stuck to it. We've gone from abortion to adoption to (somehow) child abandonement and child abuse.
As for your solution...
Not a bad start to be honest. They sound really good coming from a soapbox, but how will it be practically implimented?
I really like the idea of What we need to do is enforce a responsible sexual ethic.
How will this be done? What's your plan?
Was that supposed to be an insult against my intellectual reasoning?
No - if you're looking for an insult - consider it directed toward your reading comprehension and social skills.
I'll gladly defend my position if you restate it.
but you're a chicken shit - and you won't.
"Witness A" testified in Saddam's trial today. The woman recounted her interegation at Abu Gharib.
She recalled how she was forced to undress there and was then tied up, beaten and given electric shocks by a gang of five officers whose names she didn't know.
As part of the cross examination the defense asked:
Lawyer: We agree conditions in Abu Ghraib were very bad until recently. Did they use dogs on you?
Witness: No.
Lawyer: Did they photograph you?
Witness: No.
All of which are references to the abuses at Abu Gharib by U.S. troops.
Hopefully, Iraqis don't reason like lovinit does. If they do, they might conclude that Saddam's treatment of Witness A is no different (less egregious actually) than George Bush's treatment of the Iraqi prisoners at Abu Gharib.
And Saddam might get by with life.
Here is my statement (cut and pasted) ...
-------
I believe that people of faith, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever and thoughtful people of no faith
can come to different rightful conclusions about this.
I'll never have to make that choice for myself but I can't imagine a circumstance where, if I were a woman, I'd choose to have an abortion - and my wife feels pretty much the same way.
She'd rather die if it meant she could give birth to a healthy child - though since we had three at the time, I'm grateful she agreed to give that decision more thought as her last pregnancy progressed.
-----
What choice would I make for myself (if I were a woman - which is a big if) about abortion?
Does a 16 day undifferentiated cell have a soul, lovinit?
Before you answer that, you might want to review the definition of "undifferentiated". Here it is:
Having no special structure or function; primitive; embryonic.
or
Not differentiated; specifically (Biol.), homogenous, or nearly so; -- said especially of young or embryonic tissues which have not yet, undergone differentiation (see Differentiation, , that is, which show no visible separation into their different structural parts.
Is a 16 day undifferentiated cell sacred? Why? Why do you know better than someone else? Is God granting you an exclusive audience that he isn't granting any of us?
That's a crap answer. I'm looking for a defense of why abortion is a morally acceptable choice.
I'm still wonder when I became Hitler.
Um, when did I insult you? What? Just because I asked you to go further than preaching to a kid about the evils of premarital sex and going to hell for having an abortion?
Come on...I figured if I could get you to think that far ahead that maybe I could get you a little further.
It's the teacher and trainer in me that hates to believe all is lost.
The medical establishment defines pregnancy as begining when a fertilized egg attaches to the womb.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy.
By your definition, a woman who uses the copper-T intrauterine device or takes Plan B, Ovrette, Ogestrel, Ovral, Cryselle, Levlen, Levora ....
are committing murder and are morally equivalent to Hitler.
What about a woman who has a tubal ligation and experiences an ectopic pregnancy?
Is she guilty of murder too?
I'm looking for a defense of why abortion is a morally acceptable choice. So far you've avoided that
Morality is a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct. For many people if not most, that framework comes from Religion.
Like I said above, I believe that people of faith, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever and thoughtful people of no faith
can come to different rightful conclusions about this.
I'm not going to make that choice for them.
98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees.
Chimpanzees have been taught American Sign Language, have constructed their own sentences using it, expressed emotions and demonstrated self awarness.
My your definition, killing a premeditated killing of chimpanzee is punishable by death.
That's a crap answer.
No -- equating my willingness to permit
a woman to choose to have a fertilized egg removed from her body
with someone who systemically killed millions of adults and children
makes you pretty bonkers
I can't believe I have two men on my blog arguing about a woman's right to choose how to handle her own body!
Lovin' it, does it not EVEN occur to you that you are making moral judgments (i.e. passing judgment) in a very personal matter that has absolutely NO impact on you?
You are basically trying to make a case that anyone who doesn't think and believe as you do would be a murderer of the equivalent of Hitler, simply because they don't think it's their place to make that choice for a woman. How dare you be so arrogant?
You're not God and you can't stand in judgment of those who don't believe as you do.
We're obviously at totally different ends of the spectrum on this. It's time just to agree to disagree.
a tubal ligation is meant to prevent fertilization but there are instances where it fails - the result is always either the death of the mother or the destruction of a fertilized egg.
A woman is informed of those risks when she has the procedure.
So I'm curious, knowing there is a chance of failure, do you think she's guilty of murder?
Had Hitler lived, he would been executed at Nuremberg.
Do you intend to excute everyone who's pro-choice, including the majority of rank and file Republicans because we are no different than Hitler?
The Republican Majority for Choice is an organization of Republican men and women throughout the United States, who believe in our party's traditional principles of individual liberty, strong national security and sound economic reason. We endorse the 'big tent' philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues.
We support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political. The choice issue is symbolic to the majority of electoral voters who know that there is much more that can be lost if we do not actively work to protect that right. At stake are our fundamental constitutional rights that are so tightly woven into our country's social fabric.
Birth control that actually acts as an abortificant is murder
Now you're a doctor too - and are redefining abortion? According to the medical establishment, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches to the womb. The drugs I mentioned above are labeled as emergency contraception.
Both a doctor and God - you gonna assume any more roles?
Hitler thought the DNA of the Arian race was special too - that's why he systematically killed Jews.
It had nothing to do with their souls.
All you've done is push the parameters of his reasoning out a 1+%
Post a Comment
<< Home