First, let me recommend this article to you, written by Deroy Murdock, who examines the positives of Barack Obama from a conservative black man's viewpoint. This is well-written and it's what so many of us hope for.
Second, let's look at some of what Obama's done so far:
1. He rescinded the Mexico City Policy, which means that we will now allow aid to non-governmental organizations that encourage or perform abortions.
There are, of course, the usual moral objections that we stick-in-the-muds have about killing babies. However, most Democrats and Republicans will view this favorably for various reasons. The Democrats want to spare mothers the inconvenience of having a child, and many Republicans will find that this will save us a great deal of overseas welfare payments in the future. And they will reason that if everyone is busy matching us in killing off the next generation, we will have fewer worries about our own population's decline.
This was expected. My bet is that it is here to stay, and will never be genuinely opposed again. In fact, some groups may start to demand that we only give aid to overseas organizations that encourage abortion: After all, why should we be the only country experiencing self-imposed genocide?
This will also stop all those yucky commercials showing dying children overseas: They'll already be dead.
2. It looks as if Obama will return the States' right to impose their own restrictions on vehicles and vehicle emissions.
It's about time!
I live in Florida, which is surrounded on three sides by water. This means that smog is non-existant here, due to our wind patterns. But we certainly are happy to send it elsewhere. No one can drive with their windows opened, unless they're inhaling fumes to get high and, at the end of the trip, they are usually sporting a lovely diesel smell.
Of course environmental restrictions on vehicles and vehicle emissions will impact the poor, because it will create standards which will cost more money to achieve. However, I am very much in favor of this since it will help our struggling environment and save fuel, as it will cut back on vehicles on the road. We may see buses in increasing use, once again.
We will certainly see an end to all those dirt-encrusted cars packed full of an impossible amount of illegal immigrants and belching black clouds as they trundle down the road.
3. I'm sure there are other things that Obama has done in this first week which are much more significant than the color of the drapes or his choice of a lobbyist to be the next Secretary of Defense. Please feel free to contribute!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
He ended the war on terror. I think that was some of the biggest news out of the week. Although I personally do not have an issue with the torture that has been performed by the CIA, I do not think our government should be condoning such behavior.
-Ange
Saur,
I like your hammer.
It always hits the nail dead on.
Ange, The whole torture thing always ...confused me.
These terrorists don't fall under US law - they're prisoners of war. Of course even POWs should be treated well (despite the fact that they do not treat US well) due to the Geneva Conventions. But: When is it torture? Is torture burning the Koran or dunking it in the toilet? Is it waterboarding?
We certainly know it's sticking bamboo shoots under the nails (the Viet Kong), applying cattle prods to genitalia (the Nazis), castrating our enemies (the ancient Chinese), beating people on the soles of their feet (the Egyptians and the Saudis), burning them with cigarettes (the Russian Communists), etc.
But we've never really drawn up a definition of torture, and I believe that's sorely needed.
As for ending the war on terror - has he? How? No, my friend - he hasn't yet. However, I will be very happy to see us out of Iraq as soon as possible.
Uncle Joe, ;o)
No, his signing off on ending the war on terror is closing all of the secret CIA prisons, ending the torture, allowing the terrorists a GITMO, etc to have trials, and the list goes on. It has nothing to do with pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It really has more to do with Bush ignoring our own policies and laws on how we treat our enemies.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012203929.html
-Ange
Ange, Ah, I see what you mean. Yes - this is actually a GOOD thing - I agree for the most part.
I do need to point out that although "the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees", they are POWs and not US Citizens - therefore they are not entitled to the same rights as we are.
However, the covert CIA ops detailed in the story obviously went against the Geneva Convention.
Now let's see if Obama REALLY cares about citizen rights (as guaranteed by The Constitution) and abolishes the Patriot Act.
Closing Gitmo, closing CIA prisons, white house staff pay freeze, end to lobbying practice, re-opening diplomacy as tool rather than pre-emptive war, end of use of torture.
Good stuff.
What's not so good Saur is your justification for torture where the US broke international law and subverted the Geneva COnvention by saying that certain people were not eligible for its protection and then tortured them.
I love how you list other people that tortured, the US is in that company in the modern day, which is something it is rightly ashamed of but you seem to be adging to justify it, which is dangerous at best and morally bankrupt at worst.
Daniel, Nope! Just saying that some things seem much more tortuous than others, and that we need to put together some comprehensive guide of some sort so that we can all be on the same page.
And simply because some terrorists are not entitled to US Citizens' rights does NOT mean that they should be tortured. They are then protected under the Geneva Convention.
Bush was obviously wrong in many areas. But let's not throw the fetus out with the embryonic fluid (to recoin an old phrase).
I am always confused by your statement that there are those that want to ENCOURAGE abortion. I don't know what group is out there that is actively telling people that abortion is a good thing and that it should be used as a great source of birth control.
What I do see is responsible organizations giving women all of the available choices that are out there. I see nothing at all wrong with that and I guess that is why I oppose the use of the term "pro abortion" is is pro choice. I think that most people who work in family planning offices would much rather see women have healthy babies then choose to abort, but they stand there to give a choice because it is a completely personal issue.
Saur, Ph.D,
I think that if we're killing off our next generation, why shouldn't Latin America have the same benefit?
You seem conflicted a bit on the issue of abortion, which is the only way to be on such a complex matter. To me, abortion is neither right nor wrong. Or, it is both right and wrong. Not one or the other. It depends upon perspective.
**
What's this end of war on terror? Afghanistan is heating up and we've got flying robots hunting al-Queda in Pakistan.
Scott, I don't know what there is to be confused about(?) There are people and groups that encourage abortion. And, there are people and groups that discourage it. To say otherwise is disengenuous at best. But if you're pro-abortion, why shy away from it? Why is encouraging it such a bad thing from your point of view?
M@, I'm not conflicted about abortion, but I certainly see the positives and negatives. I remain opposed to it in principle (except for when the life of the mother is threatened).
I agree - I see no end in sight on the "War on Terror". I would like to see the end of that silly euphemism, however, which was first dreamed up by the Bush Administration to make the invasion and occupation of Iraq more palatable.
I have no problem with a true "War on Terror", but too often we're using that phrase to justify other things, such as continual occupation, nation building, and behaving as the World's Police Force.
What are these groups that ENCOURAGE abortion? I know that there are groups who are there to defend the right of a woman to have an abortion, but I don't see any people out there marching saying that we should all be a bunch of baby aborting machines just to make things easier. The groups that I know of are there to present it as an option, that does not make them PRO-ABORTION, but rather PRO-CHOICE. Do you not see a distinction there?
Scott, The difference is only in the mind of the hopeful abortion advocate, who may be attempting to ameliorate his or her conscience.
If you're pro abortion, does it really matter if abortion is used as birth control? Does it even matter if a woman had one every month or so? (Well - of course it would impact the mother's health, I suppose, but I'm discussing the concept of abortion as minor surgery to correct an inconvenience).
In other words, why whitewash it? Be proud of what you believe!
Either abortion is OK or it isn't. If you're telling a pregnant woman that it's OK to have an abortion, who cares if you're saying "Golly gee, abortions are great! I'd get one daily if I could!" or if you're saying something a little more subtle?
If abortions are a solution to the inconvenience of having a child, then they are birth control after conception, pure and simple. Let's not mince words or try to make it more palatable. It's all good, right?
I don't agree with you at all. I think that one can support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, and provide someone with the information and counselling about what will happen and help someone through the process without being Pro-Abortion. I think that most people, even those you would lable as pro-abortion do not believe that it should be used as a normal form of birth control, or even that it is a desirable thing. I know that my belief is that it would not be my choice to participate in an abortion (say a gf got pregnant), I do however believe that people have the choice as to what to do with their bodies. Thus I am not Pro Abortion and think that though you may view it as semantics, there is quite a clear difference and that it is important to recognize it.
I don't think that Obama is saying, let's get all our young women out there to have abortions because I am Pro Abortion. Buy one get one free, it's all good. Come on... you can't believe that right?
I have to agree with Scott, just because people are pro-choice does not mean that they encourage people to get abortions or think they are great and wonderful.
I think you are trying to over simplify the matter because you do not want to have a debate about it and just want to tell people they are baby killers and people that are pro-choice are encouraging everyone to go out and kill their babies. That's not correct now is it?
I think your use of sarcasm has muddied your point on the matter as well, which is why people are saying you sound conflicted on your feelings.
-Ange
Abortion as a birth control? I somehow dont think it's that "easy". It's basically a DnC, and I'm not aware of those being cakewalks.
Dave, Agreed, it's not a cakewalk. It's amazing what trouble people will go through to keep from having an eighteen year inconvenience.
Ange & Scott, You can certainly choose to look at a subject any way you wish to, if it makes you feel any better. But, it's black and white: Death or life. Or is there some in-between state you're aware of that I am not? Living Dead Fetuses? Sounds like a new rock band.
The truth is that if it's an option, then let's be blunt about it. It's an option. And the option is to "choose"... whether the baby is to live or die. It's a pretty stark "option".
One of my best friends had an abortion, then went on to have two normal healthy kids. It's a recurring nightmare now that she knows what it's like to have a child - she always wonders what that baby would have been like if she'd allowed it to live.
Many women who have undergone abortions feel the same way. It has a scarring affect in so many different aspects.
BUT: It is what it is, and I don't believe abortion will ever be off the table again.
And, as I said, there are financial and societal advantages to encouraging abortion. So, it will not change.
If you're pro abortion, then be pro abortion and be proud of it! Quit pretending that it's something more noble than it is. Otherwise, I recommend you defect to the other side.
The issue of abortion has become very sophisticated over the term "choice." It is a diversion to the real issue, and Saur, you hit it dead on.
I really don't think "pro-choicers" are convinced that abortion is a good thing. I think there is a tremendous amount of guilt, which is why there is so much anger on the subject. What is "good" is making sure the mom has a "free choice." Everything is relative to what the mother wants. It is an amoral choice based on belief. If you believe the fetus is human, then don't abort. If it isn't then no problem.
This discussion keeps our focus away from the real issue: what is the fetus? NOT: "what do you believe the fetus to be?" This is NOT a religious question on what we believe. It is an ontological question. "What is the fetus?"
If the fetus is human, then the discussion is over. If it is not, then the discussion is over. So how about we just love one another, just get along and determine the nature of the fetus? Then we get our answer, and all this fighting is done. Then we can sing "Kumbayah" and either populate the earth, or remove fetus "body parts" without all this constant bickering.
So what is the fetus? Tell me...Does anyone know? Does it matter that we know? Does it matter that we don't know and continue the "procedure?" Should we destroy another 50 million "body parts" and then look into it? Cuz, if it does matter, and we've killed 50 million pre-born humans in America alone, 500 million worldwide, then we are by far the bloodiest, cruelist, most vicious, vile, wicked, despicable generation in the history of all humankind. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ghengis Khan, Attila the Hun, Caligula, Nero, Vlad the Impaler, etc. can all join in together and shake their fingers at us and condemn our generation.
That is what eats at the pro-choicers...they're afraid that that they've supported a holocaust of innocents unlike any time period ever. So, facing this conclusion, they will do ANYTHING to keep from coming to that conclusion. They are a conflicted and emotional bunch that have no cogent argument and turn and attack those who are anti-abortion/pro-life.
So, what. is. the. fetus. people? Today, in America, we had about 5000 "procedures" occur. Were these 5000 body parts, or human? Want to forget it? Well, then, tomorrow, 5000 more women will decide to have a "procedure." Human? or not? by Feb. 1st, we will have performed 150,000 "procedures" in 2009. Human? or not?
Nuff said.
Saur,
I completely support your view on abortion. It is a way of getting rid of an inconvenience. It is birth control after conception.
I often wonder why a person that had an abortion and later have a child say they have one child. They don't they have two children. Well, I have heard one person say to me I have no living children I had an abortion when I was younger.
Saur-
Been watching/lurking for a little bit and gotta say that the pissing matches here are fantastic. Keep up the good work, will comment in the future (looking forward, actually) but have reservations about adding yet another freakin' blog to my reading list.
Harlan, We do have a wide variety of views here, but the common thread is the intelligence. It is quite enjoyable, overall, and everyone does have something to contribute. I consider myself to be very lucky to have everyone who pops in.
Michelle & UL, Thank you!
Michelle, I am sure that it is really pretty horrifying to look back on an abortion with 20/20 hindsight in such cases.
My friend is still haunted by it, and she's a very successful, balanced woman. It's a deep hidden secret but a scarring one.
I don't believe her two children know of it, and I don't know if she'll ever tell them. It's not a question our parents faced - do you say you have three kids or two?
The "Big Three" are under bankruptcy watch and begging for more bailout money. President Barack Obama thinks this is a good time to appease his environmental base by weighing Detroit down with a new round of environmental regulations. This is a horrible timing and it will severely damage the ability of the "Big Three" to return to profitability. The first increase in CAFE will take place by the 2011 model year. Detroit is now preparing to launch the 2010 model year in July. Read more here. The "Big Three" are sinking and Barack Obama fires a salvo of torpedoes
Was that spam up above? I dont recognise the name and I know it doesnt fit the discussion.
My question for any abortion foe is this: How do you feel about the death penalty? Are you an anti-war protester? Either all killing is wrong, or killing is negotiable, in which case abortion is also.
Oh, and what the hell, I'll respond to the spammer - the CAFE rules should have been raised years ago, but a congress in thrall to the oil companies decided to hold back on them, aiding and abetting our pushers, the Exxon-Mobile et al, and their suppliers, the Oil Cartel.
The price we paid for that was last summer, and however low that gas may be now, it's not going to stay there. Increasing gas mileage will decrease our dependence on that tangle of bloodthirsty worms we call the middle east (in fact, if you look at the oil producing world, are any of the supplying countries really our friends?).
Like the aforementioned child labor laws, we're not much on changing things around here if it makes a buck, but it needs to be done. The Big Three claim that they were "only building the cars America wants", but if that were really the case, why was Toyota (maker of smaller, more efficient cars) eating away at their sales?
Dave, the death penalty is the same as abortion? Innocent baby vs. Hannibal the Cannibal. Hmmm...
I think not.
"Would you send your son to a foriegn land to destroy the enemy for your country?" asked John.
"Sure I will," answered Paula.
"Will you take your daughter to an abortion clinic?" he asked.
"Hey! What kind of woman do you think I am?" Paula snapped, indignantly.
"That's already been established. Now we're just haggling over the scale!"
Remember, according to the doctrine of original sin, babies are no more innocent than any of us.
I completely and thoroughly support the right of mothers-to-be to murder their unborn children. Better to make a decision in the beginning than to drag a child through years of [whatever the intolerable situation might be that would cause a mother-to-be to consider abortion].
Is is the kiddo's fault? Certainly not, just as it is not the fault of the deer that gets hit by a car, or the fish that gets killed by chemicals washed into the stream, or the bird that gets sucked into the jet's engine. Change the conditions, and I bet mothers would not consider such a drastic move. The realities of life are harsh sometimes. This little planet cannot support 6+ billion people.
For that reason, and in consideration of a mother's right to bring a child into the world in happy circumstances, I fully support the right to murder unborn children, right up until they are actually introduced to this cruel world. Anyone denying that right had better be adopting unwanted children and providing them a better life, or shut the hell up.
R
Dave, Actually, you're wrong. The doctrine of original sin does not apply to babies because there's also an "age of consent" involved. I doubt you want any more info since Christianity isn't what you're interested in, but rest assured - your argument is false.
(For anyone interested, there's a good article about this subject here.)
R, And yet, you remain anonymous.
R:
Only a barbarian would promote the murder of unborn children to prevent them from suffering greater difficulties...but at least you're an honest barbarian.
Let me track with your line of thinking and ask you this: would it be possible that one of the 50 million unborn children murdered could have been a renowned medical researcher? A Nobel Prize laureate? How about a US president? There is no way to know, right? Right.
Let's go further...are there instances in human history where children born under difficult circumstances became great where murdering the human child would have been a tragic mistake? For instance, you would recommend the murder of an unborn boy child born to a single woman whose sperm donor Dad will have nothing to do with him and move to a different country, where she'd have to raise this unfortunate boy-child by herself in difficult economic circumstances, right? What would you say to the mother of BARAK OBAMA? Under your cruel criteria, Barak Obama, should have been sliced and diced and sucked into a sink.
Your argument is a diversion and yet, still fails, R. The issue is do we have a right to kill innocent human beings? NO. We do not. This is why we MUST oppose war unless it is the final just option and where waging it would mean a catastrophic loss of innocent life. Human life is sacred; when a society loses sight of this, they become barbaric.
We promote a barbaric culture...barbarians who where lab coats.
UL, I don't believe "R" exists. So don't worry too much about it - he/she's either a troll or it's a regular who wants to add a little spice to the discussion. It's not an honest post.
I'm not worried, lil' sister!
But, it does provide an avenue for more thinking. Barak would have fit in the category of "R's" list of murdered babies.
Yea - all Democrats are out there demanding all babies be aborted. in fact, Democrats want to make abortion MANDATORY! They are kidnapping pregnant women and taking them into abortion clinics against their will every single day.
Do you really believe that?
The truth is that under Bush - funding was cut to any group that provided ANY method of birth control. That was undone.
The "liberal" media only wants to focus on abortion however.
And you are falling for it?? If you do not have 20 kids then you have probably used some method of birth control. But under Bush, if you lived somewhere else that relied on US aid - those methods would have not been available.
Contrary to the belief of idiots on the radio, family planning and birth control is about A LOT MORE than just abortion.
But all they want to focus on is the abortion, because even they use other methods of birth control. That or they only have sex 4 or 5 times in their life - and hope that only one or two kids are produced.
Really - you need to quit listening to talk radio. There is a lot more out there.
The right claims that the left is trying to control behavior while the right is all about freedom and individual liberty. I suppose that might be true about guns. But for just about everything else - I see the opposite. The right wants to outlaw it, the left wants to leave it up to individuals to decide.
Oh God, another descent into the abortion debate that makes some Americans look backward.
By hey, torture is okay but abortion BAD!
You guys make me crack up with your confused moral compass.
And Saur, we already have a clear framework for torture, it's called the Geneva COnventions and basically says TORTURE IS BAD FULL STOP.
Now all we need is the feeding tube debate all over again...
Right to life, but not Iraqi life or Sudanese life, or Arab life for that matter, just me sticking my nose in to someone else's business.
Lazy, Exaggerating the point doesn't change it or affect what I'm saying in any way.
Daniel, If caring about a life is backward, sign me up to be a redneck.
As for torture, you've never heard me advocate it, so I'm a little lost here...
"You guys make me crack up with your confused moral compass. "
I'll assume you mean Americans in general.
I would say that either killing any human is wrong (we'll leave animals out of the discussion for now, please),
OR
there are conditions in which it is okay to kill another, in which case we're really haggling over the terms.
UL is right, when aborting a child,you dont know how you are affecting the future, but that seems like a rather pointless arguement. Barack might have been aborted had the option been available. So might Charles Manson have been.
Lazy:
Stick with the point. You are arguing in a parallel universe.
Daniel:
The abortion debate will be around as long as it is legal. Get a grip or stay out of it. Whining is not becoming.
Daveaway:
I was refuting "R's" point that an unhappy life is good reason to murder babies. However, that is not MY point.
The point is: What is the fetus? Is it human or not? Very simple.
Daniel, I suppose you're hurling now.
My point is that if it is wrong to kill a fetus, then it should be equally wrong to kill a seven-year old child, and then it should be equally wrong to kill a twenty year old, and then it should be equally wrong to kill an old person, or a sick person, or a criminal. And yet all these things are allowed, and often even cheered by the same people who object so strenuously to the death of a fetus.
I'm not saying I object to the death penalty, or that I agree with the death of the fetus. What I am saying is that there is either hypocracy going on, or there is a certain amount of negotiation involved in the "morality" of killing.
Either all life is precious, or it is all negotiable.
"the death penalty is the same as abortion? Innocent baby vs. Hannibal the Cannibal. Hmmm..."
If you want to play UL's What-If game, yes it is.
Dave, I think you're a bit confused. Various Christians believe various things. Some people who are anti-abortion ARE pro death penalty, and some are anti both abortion AND death penalty. Many of us are against the war, but some are happy to send their sons and daughters overseas.
There's too much variety among us to attemtp to typecast us.
And, frankly, it's going off on rabbit trails. The question isn't whether or not we think that killing an adult who has had time to make his/her own life decisions is necessary or even warranted.
The question is whether or not we should pass a death sentence on a child who has not had the opportunity to make such decisions for himself.
If you want to talk about the death penalty or the war, we really should save that for another post, but briefly:
1. WAR: It has taken me many years, but I believe that, overall, we are to eschew conflict if we are Christians. For more on my thoughts, go here. And I certainly don't like the current war. Of course there are times that our back is up against the wall and we must fight, so I am somewhat conflicted about this and feel that war IS a necessary evil, but not something that we should lightly go into or stay in.
2. DEATH PENALTY: I am very pro death penalty, and can make no apologies for this. I've thought about this a great deal over the years, but I see no wrong in taking the life of someone who has also taken a life(s) through an evil decision.
When fetuses start crawling out of the uterus and stalking people at night like a Chuckie doll, I'll be more in favor of abortion.
Saur, not once did I mention Christianity in my last comment (I'm not sure I mentioned it anywhere, though I'm too lazy to check right now), nor was I implying any religion. I was simply pointing out that to say "these people can be killed and these people cannot" involves a judgement call. How do you judge? Is there a moral Authority? Americans would use the Bible, and yet I recall no specific injunction against abortion, so again we are back to human judgement.
The goal of government is supposed to be the improvement (or at least happy management) of the lives of its citizens. Does the death penalty achieve that goal? Does abortion achieve that goal? Does war achieve that goal?
I agree that to kill an infant is worse than to kill a convicted killer, but is it worse for the society?
And if a child that would otherwise have been aborted grows up to be a killer, how much responsibility do abortion foes have in that outcome?
I dont have any answers, really. But if I am to err, I prefer to err on the side that has more choices. More choices are always better, even if some of the choices are bad ones. After all, nobody has to make a bad choice. One of the problems with freedom is that it's dangerous. But I'd rather have freedom and danger than no freedom and security.
Wait, somebody said that better, a long time ago didnt they?
Daveaway:
You make this a religious issue, and to strengthen your argument, you cite biblical silence. You are creating a straw man. Let me weigh in, please.
The issue of what something is or isn't is at the core of how we think and the language we use. It is unavoidable. When we eat an apple, we expect the object to taste how? "Applish." Right? We don't expect "onion." When we go to the grocery store and by a can of yams, we're not expecting cat food. If someone else "in their reality" identifies yams as catfood, they usually are not the type who are hired to market and sell yams. Right? When I announce to the world that my daughter in law is now pregnant, people don't respond: "Gee, how wonderful for you, Sam if the fetus turned out to be human! It would be a bummer if it was a blowfish (ouch). I suppose it's hard to wait, eh Sam?" I'd consider this person to be a bit "thick", wouldn't you? Is this how people think? Is there any doubt as to the outcome of pregnancy? Does ANYONE think that a mother gives birth to a pancreas, a spleen, or a liver? Are we as stupid as we appear in this discussion of abortion? I say, no, we are not stupid. We don't want to feel guilt, so invent clever and sophisticated language to hide the obvious, to our peril.
So, let's steer clear of fuzzy logic and spin, Dave. If the pre-born fetus is human...WE CAN'T KILL IT. The tired questions "What if the child suffers?" or "What if the child turns into a mass murderer or another Adolph Hitler?" is moot. No one can determine it ahead of time, so we fallible beings need to stay out of the "god business."
So, I ask again and no one cares to face it...What. is. the. fetus?
What is the fetus?
Not a sentinent living being for a start and more importantly, none of your f*cking business.
Daniel:
Stick to acting; you're good at that. Stay away from ethics, morals and religion. You suck at it.
With this business and because you like to use the "F" bomb, step aside and stay out of this. Mankind is all of our business. While you are at it, read Charles Dickens "A Christmas Carol" and listen hard to what Jacob Marley says. Take his advice. Nuff said.
Trust you to think that ethics, morals and religion are not universal; they are everyone's business as long as it is expressing your own but the second they impact upon basic human rights and a woman or man's choice about what to do with their own body, they've crossed the line.
You suck at not being a prejudiced monotheist.
And becuase you hold backward, prejudiced views of humanity, I think you need to step aside from this debate, unless, like me, you can leave religion at the door.
Nuff said.
"When we eat an apple, we expect the object to taste how? 'Applish.' Right? We don't expect 'onion.'"
Actually, I read somewhere when a child that if you hold your nose, you cannot tell the difference between a piece of apple and a piece of onion. I have never tried this myself, so I cannot confirm it.
"Does ANYONE think that a mother gives birth to a pancreas, a spleen, or a liver? "
What????
And since "God-given" morality is the basis of arguement against choice, I'd say that any discussion of the Bible, silent or not, is no straw man at all, but completely relevant.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the fetus isnt human, I'm arguing that if the fetus is sacred because it is human, then so to are all other human lives.
Are you confusing my arguements with Daniel's?
Daveaway:
I don't think so. I think you are trying to make a point that is a corolary to my point. All human life is sacred. No doubt about it.
I'm not a war monger at all. My statements contain two syllogisms. The first's main premise is: The murder of a human being is reprehensible and criminal; the fetus is a human being; therefore, the murder of a fetus is reprehensible and criminal. Second, is related: major premise is abortion is the destruction of a fetus, minor premise: fetus is a human being, therefore abortion is the destruction of a human being.
The term "abortion" is used as a euphemism for killing. The methods of abortion are rather barbaric, such as:
1. Saline injection, which scalds the baby, and then a miscarriage occurs.
2. The slicing and sucking of the baby's body parts through a hose via a vacuum into a recepticle. The baby's head is crushed with a forecepts.
I can't go any further. This is bad.
Daniel:
You're not very coherent. The PRINCIPLES of morality and ethics are universal. What you constantly propose is a loosey-goosey relativism which lets anyone decide anything they want about what is moral or not except people like me. The other problem is that you and many others forget that there is another body involved that no one even considers...THE BABY'S.
As to making pre-judgments--nah. I don't make judgments before I think them through. You, on the other hand, I'm not so sure. I think the collective pro-abortion movement is aftraid to admit the obvious because it would mean enduring a crushing guilt to great to bear. Worldwide, in the last 36years, there have been approximately 500 million babies killed. This is why I have such energy to raise the issue. It's not to be contrary.
You connect this to my monotheism. I connect to it human experience. All pregnant mothers give birth to human beings, and the wonder and awe of pre-born infants. If you want to see the horror of abortion, check out this link: http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/
I dare you. Have some guts and face this thing, Daniel.
I like the pictures, they remind me of all the dead Iraqi children maimed by US bombs.
Right to life?
Yeah right.
Get your moral compass and stick it up your ass.
"I don't think so. I think you are trying to make a point that is a corolary to my point. All human life is sacred. No doubt about it."
I'm not going to argue about the gruesomeness of the process. I dont like abortion. It's pretty awful. So is war, so is murder, so is execution, so are drunk driving deaths, and on and on.
But I'm trying to discuss this in bigger terms than just you or I. Perhaps you do consider all life sacred. I personally consider the potential of life sacred, which perhaps gives me a bit more wiggle room (or perhaps not).
Unfortunately (and I think this may be Daniel's point), the standard bearer for the anti-abortion movement in the U.S. is the Republican Party, which shows a marked disrespect for any human life that fails to have either several million dollars and/or a lobbying firm backing them up.
The anti-abortion movement, by hitching their wagon to a party that wallows in death like a dog in a midden, the way that the GOP does, opens itself up to charges of hypocracy, which ultimately damages their arguement. Unfortunately, there is no real solution for this situation, since neither party is likely to change their stances.
Incidentally, can you image an extra 500 million people on the planet today? I'm curious if those numbers include the Chinese, whose One Child program has kept their population down at a rather draconian cost.
Daniel:
With whom or what are you fighting? Not me. Notjust MY moral compass. It's everyone's compass. UK women who are pregnant give birth to humans too, right? Daniel, this is human! Stop being so divided with yourself and accept humanity.
Daveaway:
I understand your point and what the Repubs do is a problem. But it is beside the point. Let's cover one thing at a time.
As you mention it, I think I see where Daniel is coming from more clearly. Is Daveaway correct, Daniel? I am not speaking as a Republican and saying that the Republicans are paragons of virtue. Gee whiz! They are not paragons of virtue and too often they use a pro-life plank to get votes with no action at all. I'm positive that there are Democrats, Whigs, Torries, etc. who are pro-life. Though I see your and Daniel's concern, this is a Red Herring. I'm not asking or demanding you accept a political party here. We could discuss later what changes need to come to the Republicans and the issues of just war and pre-emptive war. I think you, Daniel and I would mainly agree. Could you handle agreeing with me, Daniel? LOL I'm joking with you man!
Look, can we just look at this issue as human beings and accept the obvious? I think we can!
You're the one dividing UL, let people make their own hard decisions on what they can and cannot do with their body, government has no legislation here, neither does your moral compass.
Everyone, I'll stay out of the fray except to say one thing to Dave: Dave, to ask who can morally judge between an infant and a serial killer is ridiculous and I think you know that, as well. And at least in Florida, only murderers get the death penalty. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for them.
Soldiers are something different entirely: They choose to go over there. Whether or not we like the war has nothing to do with their personal choices.
Personally, I don't get the parents who encourage their kids to join the military, but I never said I did. I can't really explain or justify their behavior or choices; only my own.
Actually, I'm not saying there's no difference in killing a child, killing a murderer and killing a fetus (a tiny, barely-formed, pre-birth human being). There is. What I am saying is that it is a judgement call, a judgement call that is formed from socially created mores.
I've got nothing against the death penalty - they played the game, broke the rules, and need to be kicked off the board. I dont like abortion, but I respect (is that the right word?) the rights of the parents in making the choice, rather than the government. I dont like war, but I understand that sometimes wars must be fought, and that those wars will be messy.
In all of these cases, it is not the death that I find terrible, it is that someone, out of many choices, chose death (frequently for someone else). Sometimes, it boils down to a simple "him or me". Too often it does not.
UL, it is not beside the point. You cannot claim the moral high ground while taking the low road of expediency.
Post a Comment