NationStates Jolt Archive

After looking over the candidates, it is my opinion that Senator Sam Brownback is the best choice for President. Not only is he not ashamed of his beliefs, he is willing to stand up for them publically. He stands up for human life, and is not afraid to show his faith.
Comments?

Time to bring up John Leland again:

Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it . Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .


excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings of John Leland , Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270)

This merits a response.

First of all, voting for someone because they are Catholic, or rather, because they are a good Catholic is perfectly reasonable IF the Catholic faith is the most true. If it is the most true religion, then it will also convey the most moral values, the best system of government, and the most valid perspective on human nature and the environment, as it will also be the most consistent with itself and the god who runs planet earth. In our democracy, we do not prohibit the free-for-all contest for religious supremecy, only we force religions to use PERSUASION to do so, rather than violence or coercion. However, in so far as the issues of marriage, sexual morality, etc. have ALWAYS been recognized as proper subjects of law, I do not see it as inconsistent for a government to regularize them based on the most sensible moral opinion. It is not so much that we should prohibit gay marriage, abortion, etc. because they are contrary to my religion, but rather my religion has helped me see the truth that they are wrong, which would be the natural moral faculty of any person, if they were not deluded.

Secondly, no one has to prove that Catholicism is true, and, indeed, in so far as it is based on the personality of a particular figure, I do not even see how that is entirely possible. You have to experience it to believe it, and if the value of such a claim does not appeal to you, tough.

Third, the issue about the first amendment is essentially flawed. This country has always recognized marriage as an institution which took place "under God," the Declaration of Independence is part of the organic law of this country, and the common law has ever included references to "the end of time" or "acts of God." When there is precedent for it, one should interpret the intrusion of statutory law (including the Constitution) in its most narrow sense. Moreover, it is yet to be seen how any of the issues being discussed limits or expands religious establishment at all, except by promoting the non-confessional speculation of one religion or another (confessional would be something like the Trinity). This does not amount to an actual establishment of a religion, but an acceptance that, perhaps, one religion has guessed something legal, philosophical, historical as correct. It would be folly not to recognize this if it is true.

Finally, there is no reason to get all fussy about "the social reign of Christ the King." It's been around for nearly a hundred years, if not more, in Catholic Social Doctrine. You should check out the encyclical "Rerum Novarum" Leo XIII, and perhaps you will be enlightened about these sorts of things. As for its implications, you pointed out the issue of "brainwashing." Strangely, it is usually the case that people are happier in Catholic communities when they are themselves Catholic (not always; sometimes the stress of community building creates problems). Moreover I cannot see how giving life a focus, a meaning, and encouraging a community mind could be considered malicious. It is "brainwashing," i.e. cleaning out the dirty crap left in it by our compromised society.

1: I am a troll because I disagree with you?

My bad. I assumed you were a troll because I thought no one would actually espouse such asinine opinions. Apparently, you are sincere.

2: Same sex couples can not correctly raise a child. They will be raised with a warped conscience, thinking that homosexual sex is natural. Yes, there are single parents, but that is a different situation.

1. Homosexual sex is natural. It is found throughout nature.

2. Now you've switched from being able to have a child as the threshold to marriage to making how well you would raise a child the threshold. Does that mean every couple should be evaluated for how well they would raise children before they are allowed to marry?

3. As a matter of fact, studies into the matter have shown that children of same-sex couples are: (1) as, if not more, well-adjusted than children of "nuclear families" and (2) are no more likely to be homosexual than other children.

3: They were wrong. A black man and a white woman can form a child.

Again, procreation is not required for marriage. That is a false standard you are setting up.

Moreover, you are as wrong now as they were then. They relied on "natural law" as well.

1: God does take of the baby, through the woman.

So women are no more than incubators. Nice.

2: No, gays are not second class citizens. Neither are woman. Many women are pro life, and I doubt they would consdier themselves second class citizens.

You are making anyone that isn't straight and male a second-class citizen by denying them fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

I notice you didn't address my third point about how extreme Brownback's position is. He does more than just oppose Roe. He would overturn the whole concept of privacy as a fundamental right.


1: Of course it is not OK to make a human sacrifice to the true God.

Whew. Glad we cleared that up. What was your point then?

2: Yes, I admit that I typed the wrong thing. That was a typing error. Thank you for pointing it out.

1. LOL. You are claiming "The Establishment Clause" was a typo for "The Free Exercise Clause"?

2. If you meant the Free Exercise Clause, then you failed to make a point about the Establishment Clause. You lose.

3: http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11539188/
Wanting to remove cross from public land. This would block the expression of a symbol of the fortitude of the American people, and the symbol of the majority religion of this nation.

Read your own biased source. It explains why the ACLU is protecting freedom of religion:

In a 2001 release announcing the original lawsuit about the cross, staff attorney Peter Eliasberg wrote that "the federal government should not offer public land - owned collectively by people of every faith and of no faith - as a site for the advertisement and promotion of Jesus Christ, Buddha, Pope John Paul II, or any other particular religious figure."

"If any person was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site, we would have no objection," Eliasberg added, "but that is not the case here."

"No other group is allowed to erect a religious symbol. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other," he said.

The whole point of the Establishment Clause is that government may not favor a religion over other religions or religion over no religion. A huge cross on taxpayer land is, as explained above, favoring a religion.

I will let Saint Thomas Aquinas answer this.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

First off, I will let be known that I am a Catholic and also that my father knew Brownback before he was famous (he went to Emporia State while Brownback went to KU and used to go out drinking sometimes) and apparently he did not talk about religion so much when he was younger, he even went so far as to quote Seneca, "Religion is regarded by the fools as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful". It seems even then he was obsessed with a maniacal desire to be President.
Simply put, Brownback probably believes about 5% of what he preaches, and he uses a right-wing position to galvanize evangelical Christians into voting for him because all of the wiser positions are filled with more competent candidates. The Republican Party is a tool of Satan, as are people like Brownback, used to lure fools into his grasp. The Bible even says the Antichrist and his followers will come in the form of the true believer. You are destroying yourself, myself, America and the world every time you vote Republican on any level of government.
I am also well aquainted with Thomas Aquinas's five "proofs".
I will now take each in turn so that a "Catholic" might discover the true God.
Argument from motion: Anything moved must have a prior mover, therefore there must have been a first mover and we call that mover God. Argument from cause: There is no effect without a cause, therefore there must have been a first cause which we call God. Argument from necessity: Nothing can come to existence from nothing, therefore there must have been something that created the first thing from which everything has spawned, which we call God I will deal with all three of his first arguments together, as they are all variations on the same argument, the oldest argument, invoking an infinite regress. However it stands that any being so complex as God is far more unlikely to spontaneously occur than whatever he moved first, therefore God requires an even more complex mover to move him, and so on ad infinitum. It is an all too common mistake by hack theologians to assume that God is simple. The real answer lies somewhere in the torus-shaped nature of space-time. It should also be noted that nowhere in these proofs does he demonstrate that he listens to prayers, cares about abortions, hates the act of homosexuality etc.
Argument from relativity of gradation: We see things as being 'good' or 'bad', bu some things are more 'good' than others, therefore there must be an embodiment of ultimate goodness which we call God. This is a rather blithe assumption that something must exist to set a standard. If we can say something is stinkier than something else, apparently there must be an embodiment of ultimate stinkiness (which would be my dormmate Frank). Or in like kind I could say something is more like a unicorn than something else, yet how does that mean that there must an ultimate standard set in there existing a unicorn somewhere?
Argument from evidence of design: Everything in the universe is so complex that it clearly was designed by some intelligent maker, which we call God. Luckily I have the entire fact of evolution to break this 'proof' for me. The "design" we see today is like looking up a cliff face. A creationist cannot see anyway to get up the mountain, so he has God hoist him up. An evolutionist expands his perceptions to see that behind the cliff face there is a gentle slope leading to the top. Ultimately the evolutionist reaches the top of the mountain whilst the creationist stays in front of the cliff face waiting for somebody to pick him up.
God invented spirituality, but the Devil invented religion. God gave me the ability to reason and figure out the world, and the ability to refuse to believe some ancient nonsensical texts. He also gave me the ability to use it as a guide to whatever extent I choose, and to acknowledge that the Pope hs many important things to say, though I am free to disbelieve what I will. God gave me the ability to try to understand that he is something far more beautiful, complex and all-encompassing than the banal Biblical god, which Satan would have us believe we must follow. Ultimately, Cherry Ridge and everyone who thinks the same, you have been blessed with the most astonishing ability imaginable, if you squander it you are doomed to your own personal hell.

Animal life is worth less than human life, correct. They do not have a soul, and do not have the ability to think on the same level as humans.
Adult humans.

Put a 3 year old child and a smart chimp next to each other and let them do some problem solving, and I'm not entirely sure that child will win.

As for the soul part, that's the sort of argument that only works if I already agreed with your opinions, more or less.

I see Cherry Ridge ignored my comment about the Catholic Church being the true church or the question I posed to him. What about it Cherry Ridge? I can go back to that post and post the link if ya want it.

1: Galileo was imprisoned for teaching theological truth, not scientific truth.

That is such bullshit it's a wonder your eyes don't turn brown. "The Earth revolves around the Sun, and here's the proof" is SCIENCE. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

I also urge you to read Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic hcurch by H.W. Crocker. He has a load of citations in the back for his claims.

That sounds like an excellent and balanced source.

:rolleyes:

The Catholic perspective is not the only perspective, there is every single other denomination of Christianity, and all other religions.

As well as Athiesm and Secular Humanism.

That is such bullshit it's a wonder your eyes don't turn brown. "The Earth revolves around the Sun, and here's the proof" is SCIENCE. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.

Yes, that is Science, but the church heirarchy got mad because he was teaching that it was not against scripture, thus, a layman trying to teach scripture to the church.

I see Cherry Ridge ignored my comment about the Catholic Church being the true church or the question I posed to him. What about it Cherry Ridge? I can go back to that post and post the link if ya want it.

Jesus gave keys to Peter, etc. But you probably know that argument. There was one Christian Church before the schism with the Orthodox- we would both have to back down there and say we are both true churches. Protestants broke off later, a proven fact. They still have truth in them, but are wrong on some things, in the Catholic Church's eyes.

After thinking about it a lot of the day, I realized you guys were right on a lot of things. Therefore, I don't really support Brownback anymore. We may not agree about religion, but you guys are definitely right about the constitutional things.

After thinking about it a lot of the day, I realized you guys were right on a lot of things. Therefore, I don't really support Brownback anymore. We may not agree about religion, but you guys are definitely right about the constitutional things.

Why the switch on the actual political issues? Did you realize the importance of the freedom to be Catholic or to say things about Catholics?

I'm not trying to incite, I would just like to know why.

Jesus gave keys to Peter, etc. But you probably know that argument. There was one Christian Church before the schism with the Orthodox- we would both have to back down there and say we are both true churches.

Why would I have to back down? I did not make any claims!

Protestants broke off later, a proven fact. They still have truth in them, but are wrong on some things, in the Catholic Church's eyes.

And vice versa.

lol.

Wasn't Brownback one of the candidates that said he didn't believe in evolution at the debate?

Oh well, it doesn't matter, he'll never be given the nomination... Giuliani, McCain, or Romney will.

I have three names for u Cherry: Ted Haggard, Jeff Gannon, & Mark Foley


I have no problems with the Catholic Church. Most of it's members are moderate. Just the people who align themselves with the far-right I have a problem. Last thing Catholic's want is to go back to the mother church dominating thier whole lives.

Yes, that is Science, but the church heirarchy got mad because he was teaching that it was not against scripture, thus, a layman trying to teach scripture to the church.

So, The Church knows best, and anyone who goes against it can be killed? Sounds like a lovely organization to me.

And...HOLY FUCKING MOTHER OF JESUS ON A POGO STICK...

NSG SUPPOSEDLY CHANGED SOMEONE'S MIND!!!

We must use this power only for personal amusement.

After thinking about it a lot of the day, I realized you guys were right on a lot of things. Therefore, I don't really support Brownback anymore. We may not agree about religion, but you guys are definitely right about the constitutional things.

I thought Rule 22 of the Internet was that you could never change anyone's mind via the Internet.

Exceptions prove the rule I guess.

As for the Religion argument, forget that shit, we'll be sorting that out until the end of us.

As well as Athiesm and Secular Humanism.

Whoa! How could I forget that? Now I feel bad. Though I do count Atheism as a religion, sorta like how Shaving your head is a hairstyle, while Agnosticism is being bald. Though Dawkins is right, agnostics are functional atheists.

As well as Athiesm and Secular Humanism.
Wrong, you don't get a point of view.
Read the Sign, it clearly says: "No god, no shirt, no perspective."

Why would I have to back down? I did not make any claims!



And vice versa.

1: I was referring to the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

2: Yes, but I doubt a discussion on NSG would solve that problem.

Why the switch on the actual political issues? Did you realize the importance of the freedom to be Catholic or to say things about Catholics?

I'm not trying to incite, I would just like to know why.

Well I was not sure I agreed on the censorship. Also, he does not believe in evolution, which is scary considering the evidence is right there. Also, we need to get out of Iraq.

Well I was not sure I agreed on the censorship. Also, he does not believe in evolution, which is scary considering the evidence is right there. Also, we need to get out of Iraq.

So, did you get off on winding people around here up over this? Because only a complete tool would expect us to believe that you suddenly came to this revelation about Brownback because of the factors you listed above.

Cherry Ridge, you clearly do not understand the point of the Constitution of the United States. Really it just goes to highlight the social immaturity of the American people as a whole. I'm starting to believe that Americans are not mature enough to handle the democracy they have been given. I say this because the country as a whole can't seem to recognize that freedom means freedom for everyone, even if you think it is "immoral." The whole point of equality + freedom is that all people are equally free. (yes that was self-explanatory but you don't seem to grasp it)

Don't like what's on TV? some people do, you don't have to watch it.
Are you pro-life? then don't get an abortion.
think jacking off is evil and wrong? don't do it. Or make a law instituting mandatory sex on a regular basis....oh, excuse me, extra-marital affairs are the devil's work, and everyone must believe in god and follow your interpretation of the bible.

that was the sarcasm part.

Wrong, you don't get a point of view.
Read the Sign, it clearly says: "No god, no shirt, no perspective."

Sigged.

Schrandtopia;12612995']there are plenty of secular arguments against abortion and Americans seem to be like them

we just outlawed partial birth abortion and I'm damn glad we did it

I wish people would argue the secular points more. Give me one secular anti-abortion arguement. Please!

I wish people would argue the secular points more. Give me one secular anti-abortion arguement. Please!

"Fuck you and the rest of your life!"

There's one, right there.

Kidding, kidding...put down the pitchforks...

1: I was referring to the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches.

Ah gotcha.

2: Yes, but I doubt a discussion on NSG would solve that problem.

Probably not :D

I wish people would argue the secular points more. Give me one secular anti-abortion arguement. Please!

Actually, I've never heard a non-secular argument against abortion.

The only argument AGAINST abortion I have ever heard is that foeti are human. This has nothing to do with religion. It's perfectly possible to believe in the soul, for example, and yet think that the soul enters the body at birth or even some later point.

The only argument FOR abortion that I have ever heard, although it is often implicit rather than explicit, is that foeti are not human. Only in this context does making abortion a matter of personal choice make sense.

If foeti are human, then abortion is murder. If foeti are not human, then the matter is purely the responsibility of the parents. Sadly, even though BOTH views are entirely predicated on this issue of human/not human, it is rather rare for either side to understand this or to present any substantive argument on this central issue. The pro-choice group fails to understand that choice does not apply if someone else's life is at stake. The mother doesn't have the right to terminate a baby that has already been born; if the foetus is human, then she does not have the right to terminate it before birth either. The pro-life group understands this better, but tends to rely on affirmation ("Foeti are human!") rather than argument ("After a certain point, foeti can survive outside the womb. Therefore, treating foeti differently from babies is entirely an arbitrary distinction).

But none of this has anything to do with religion. No part of the Jewish or Christian bibles states whether foeti are human. To reiterate: it's a question of whether or not abortion is murder, and an atheist who believes that foeti are human should view it as murder.

The pro-choice group fails to understand that choice does not apply if someone else's life is at stake.

Rubbish. If this was true then blood and organ donation would be mandatory. If I suffer from kidney failure, are you obliged to undergo surgery and give me one of yours? Of course not. It'd be nice of you, but you're under no legal obligation to do so because everyone has control over their own body and this is the most fundamental of human rights.

The pro-life group understands this better, but tends to rely on affirmation ("Foeti are human!") rather than argument ("After a certain point, foeti can survive outside the womb. Therefore, treating foeti differently from babies is entirely an arbitrary distinction).

Oh, and if I recall correctly about 90% of abortions take place in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

You're also making the 'argument from potential' fallacy.

Rubbish. If this was true then blood and organ donation would be mandatory. If I suffer from kidney failure, are you obliged to undergo surgery and give me one of yours? Of course not. It'd be nice of you, but you're under no legal obligation to do so because everyone has control over their own body and this is the most fundamental of human rights.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, because it's a false analogy.

The example you cite pertains to a passive refusal to help another person. The example I cite (again, working under the assumption that foeti are human, which I maintain is the heart of the question) is one of X terminating Y's life. There is no way to passively end a pregnancy - you need to physically, either chemically or surgically, remove or destroy the cells constituting the foetus.

Oh, and if I recall correctly about 90% of abortions take place in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy.

You're also making the 'argument from potential' fallacy.

I was citing an example of an argument which a hypothetical pro-life campaigner might make, not one which I would make myself, so I didn't put much effort into making it rigorous. I have yet to determine my own views on the subject, but if I were to make an argument against abortion, I suspect that I would point out that virtually all of the arguments normally made in favour of abortion can also apply to newborns.

I'm afraid you're wrong there, because it's a false analogy.

The example you cite pertains to a passive refusal to help another person. The example I cite (again, working under the assumption that foeti are human, which I maintain is the heart of the question) is one of X terminating Y's life. There is no way to passively end a pregnancy - you need to physically, either chemically or surgically, remove or destroy the cells constituting the foetus.

So you're already disowning your original statement that:

The pro-choice group fails to understand that choice does not apply if someone else's life is at stake.

I've shown that you most certainly do have choice, even when life is at stake. If you're going to redefine terms and bring new ideas in then please do so openly rather than pretending they were there all along.

An abortion could be terminated passively by simply removing the embryo from the womb: without the mother's active support it will die. Several morning-after pills work passively by preventing a fertilised egg from implanting but anti-choicers still oppose them.

I was citing an example of an argument which a hypothetical pro-life campaigner might make, not one which I would make myself, so I didn't put much effort into making it rigorous. I have yet to determine my own views on the subject, but if I were to make an argument against abortion, I suspect that I would point out that virtually all of the arguments normally made in favour of abortion can also apply to newborns.

How? Arguments from abortion tend to work on the following principles:

1. An embryo/foetus is a parasite, it leeches off the woman.
2. Women are human beings.
3. Human beings are not obliged to support parasites in their bodies against their will.
4. Therefore, women are not obliged to support a parasite in their bodies if they don't want to.

A newborn is not a parasite in the technical term, and it can be raised by anyone, not just the mother.

So you're already disowning your original statement that:

I've shown that you most certainly do have choice, even when life is at stake. If you're going to redefine terms and bring new ideas in then please do so openly rather than pretending they were there all along.

Did you actually read what I said? I said that choice is irrelevant to the political debate if the question becomes one of murder. But the murderer clearly has a choice - the choice whether or not to fire the gun.

There is choice in every aspect of life. Legitimate and legal choice as to where to put your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

An abortion could be terminated passively by simply removing the embryo from the womb: without the mother's active support it will die. Several morning-after pills work passively by preventing a fertilised egg from implanting but anti-choicers still oppose them.
An active decision still needs to be made to take a course of action that will inevitably result in another human dying (remember, we're assuming that foeti are human). Imagine a case of two fully-grown siamese twins. If they are separated, one will die but the other will live. Does the one who will live have the choice to terminate the other?

Did you actually read what I said? I said that choice is irrelevant to the political debate if the question becomes one of murder. But the murderer clearly has a choice - the choice whether or not to fire the gun.

There is choice in every aspect of life. Legitimate and legal choice as to where to put your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

I read it, but given what you say next I doubt you did...

An active decision still needs to be made to take a course of action that will inevitably result in another human dying (remember, we're assuming that foeti are human).

Every course of action requires an 'active decision' (although I have to say that 'active decision' is a rather pointlesss phrase). To go back to the kidney example, if I ask you for a kidney then it takes just as much action to say 'no' as it does to say 'yes'; if you refuse then you're choosing to take a course of actions which will inevitably result in my death.

Oh, and I'm not assuming that foetuses are people, I'm merely agreeing for the sake of argument.

Imagine a case of two fully-grown siamese twins. If they are separated, one will die but the other will live. Does the one who will live have the choice to terminate the other?

If by 'terminate' you mean separate themselves from their twin, then yes they do.

Every course of action requires an 'active decision' (although I have to say that 'active decision' is a rather pointlesss phrase). To go back to the kidney example, if I ask you for a kidney then it takes just as much action to say 'no' as it does to say 'yes'; if you refuse then you're choosing to take a course of actions which will inevitably result in my death.

There is a fundamental difference between saying "I won't give you my kidneys" and saying "I'm going to shoot you." I'm suggesting that abortion, particularly in its later stages (this is one moral reason to differentiate between abortion and the morning-after pill), is much closer to the latter than the former.

And even in your (inappropriate) analogy, you aren't taking a course of action that will inevitably result in someone's death - you're leaving it to some third party to volunteer a kidney for them. It's closer to adoption than abortion.

Do you believe that it is legitimate for a mother to leave a newborn in a deserted area where it is certain to starve?

Oh, and I'm not assuming that foetuses are people, I'm merely agreeing for the sake of argument. I'm not assuming that foeti are people, either. It's simply that I believe very strongly that, if they are people, that abortion is murder.

Of course, there are excellent arguments for believing that they are not people, at least up to a certain stage of development.



If by 'terminate' you mean separate themselves from their twin, then yes they do.
In that case, you certainly can't portray yourself as an advocate of choice in politics, since you have fundamentally undercut the idea that one person's choice ends at the limits of another person's.

Your concept of "choice" is vulnerable to the argument that it legitimizes any form of choice - my choice to machine-gun a school, for example - simply on the grounds that it is a choice.

If by 'terminate' you mean separate themselves from their twin, then yes they do.

Oh, no they don't. It says that one will die if they are separated and both are fully grown. One has no right to off the other.

Oh, no they don't. It says that one will die if they are separated and both are fully grown. One has no right to off the other.

RLI apparently thinks that it's fine to kill another human as long as that human is physically attached to you, so why not Siamese twins as much as unborn babies?

Actually, I've never heard a non-secular argument against abortion.

The only argument AGAINST abortion I have ever heard is that foeti are human. This has nothing to do with religion. It's perfectly possible to believe in the soul, for example, and yet think that the soul enters the body at birth or even some later point.

The only argument FOR abortion that I have ever heard, although it is often implicit rather than explicit, is that foeti are not human. Only in this context does making abortion a matter of personal choice make sense.

If foeti are human, then abortion is murder. If foeti are not human, then the matter is purely the responsibility of the parents. Sadly, even though BOTH views are entirely predicated on this issue of human/not human, it is rather rare for either side to understand this or to present any substantive argument on this central issue. The pro-choice group fails to understand that choice does not apply if someone else's life is at stake. The mother doesn't have the right to terminate a baby that has already been born; if the foetus is human, then she does not have the right to terminate it before birth either. The pro-life group understands this better, but tends to rely on affirmation ("Foeti are human!") rather than argument ("After a certain point, foeti can survive outside the womb. Therefore, treating foeti differently from babies is entirely an arbitrary distinction).

But none of this has anything to do with religion. No part of the Jewish or Christian bibles states whether foeti are human. To reiterate: it's a question of whether or not abortion is murder, and an atheist who believes that foeti are human should view it as murder.

Incorrect on several counts. First of all, any idiot can tell you that a human embryo is human. I mean, it's right there in the words "human embryo." Of course, your fingernail clippings are also human. They are not, however, people, which is the actual issue you're attempting to address.

Secondly, whether or not embryos are people is actually rather irrelevant, as no born person is legally allowed to use another's body against his or her will. Why on earth would such a right then be granted to the unborn?

RLI apparently thinks that it's fine to kill another human as long as that human is physically attached to you, so why not Siamese twins as much as unborn babies?

Because Siamese twins are COMPLETELY human. Fetuses are POTENTIALLY human.

Because Siamese twins are COMPLETELY human. Fetuses are POTENTIALLY human.

The question presupposed that foeti are human pure and simple. Of course, that may not be the case, but it was the condition of the argument (see my original post).

Incorrect on several counts. First of all, any idiot can tell you that a human embryo is human. I mean, it's right there in the words "human embryo." Of course, your fingernail clippings are also human. They are not, however, people, which is the actual issue you're attempting to address.

Semantics...

Secondly, whether or not embryos are people is actually rather irrelevant, as no born person is legally allowed to use another's body against his or her will. Why on earth would such a right then be granted to the unborn?

See the Siamese twins example.

Please, people--take the abortion debate into a thread all its own.

RLI apparently thinks that it's fine to kill another human as long as that human is physically attached to you, so why not Siamese twins as much as unborn babies?

Nice strawman.

Oh, no they don't. It says that one will die if they are separated and both are fully grown. One has no right to off the other.

There's a distinction between death as an end in itself and death as a consequence. The first twin has a right to control their own body, the dependant twin doesn't have a right to live of the first twin without their consent. If there's no way for the first twin to be separated without the dependant twin dying, and the first twin wants to be separated, then they have a right to do so; there's no right to be live off another human being parasitically.

Imagine if a terminally ill person was somehow attached to you without your consent, and could only continue to live by leeching off of you (severely impeding your life in the process). Would you be obliged to support them?

Nice strawman.



There's a distinction between death as an end in itself and death as a consequence. The first twin has a right to control their own body, the dependant twin doesn't have a right to live of the first twin without their consent. If there's no way for the first twin to be separated without the dependant twin dying, and the first twin wants to be separated, then they have a right to do so; there's no right to be live off another human being parasitically.

Imagine if a terminally ill person was somehow attached to you without your consent, and could only continue to live by leeching off of you (severely impeding your life in the process). Would you be obliged to support them?

Of course. Bear in mind that the person in question is to be attached to you for nine months and then be put up for adoption (and also that, except in cases of rape, he or she was not attached to you "without your consent" but in consequence of your negligence).

Could you answer my "newborn" example?

Nice strawman.



There's a distinction between death as an end in itself and death as a consequence. The first twin has a right to control their own body, the dependant twin doesn't have a right to live of the first twin without their consent. If there's no way for the first twin to be separated without the dependant twin dying, and the first twin wants to be separated, then they have a right to do so; there's no right to be live off another human being parasitically.

Imagine if a terminally ill person was somehow attached to you without your consent, and could only continue to live by leeching off of you (severely impeding your life in the process). Would you be obliged to support them?

Congrats on being one of the very few (Or it may actually be just you) on NSG who has convinced me to change my mind of something.

After looking over the candidates, it is my opinion that Senator Sam Brownback is the best choice for President. Not only is he not ashamed of his beliefs, he is willing to stand up for them publically. He stands up for human life, and is not afraid to show his faith.
Comments?

The only candidate worse than this guy is John Edwards. At least Tommy Thompson is funny to listen to- this guy's a fucking nut.

The only candidate worse than this guy is John Edwards. At least Tommy Thompson is funny to listen to- this guy's a fucking nut.

And Sam Brownback isn't?

And Sam Brownback isn't?

Of course he is- that's what I said.

Please, people--take the abortion debate into a thread all its own.

Good call - I think I must just be spoiling for another abortion argument. :p

I'm just another Obamaniac. Brownback's a nut, I would never vote for him

Of course he is- that's what I said.

I think what he meant was "And brownback isn't funny to listen to?"

lol.

Wasn't Brownback one of the candidates that said he didn't believe in evolution at the debate?

Oh well, it doesn't matter, he'll never be given the nomination... Giuliani, McCain, or Romney will.

I'd really like to believe you that the ultraconservative Dominionist theocon won't get the Republican nomination. Sadly, there are three words that make me doubt the validity of that statement:

George. W. Bush.

:eek: :(

Of course. Bear in mind that the person in question is to be attached to you for nine months and then be put up for adoption (and also that, except in cases of rape, he or she was not attached to you "without your consent" but in consequence of your negligence).

Could you answer my "newborn" example?

Start a new thread and I'll try to respond next time I'm on; The Nazz is right, I shouldn't have highjacked this thread. Sorry all. :)

Congrats on being one of the very few (Or it may actually be just you) on NSG who has convinced me to change my mind of something.

Whoo! :D

Seriously though, I'm not saying that I'd morally support a twin who chose to separate at the cost of their sibling's life, only that they have the legal right to do so. Personally I can't imagine growing up with somebody and then choosing a course of action which would almost inevitably lead to their death, and I can't see it ever happening in real life.

I'm just another Obamaniac. Brownback's a nut, I would never vote for him

As a Kansan, I have had to deal with Brownback for a while now, and I couldn't agree with you more.