Printable View
This one's more fodder for diff to call me an elitist, but it's a good article anyway.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/po...rtner=homepage
The headline said that nearly 3/4 of the country want a President with strong religious beliefs. That's a lot of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
My response? A lot of people eat at the Sizzler, too.
My response? I still don't like Kerry, even though I know now that he was raised as a Catholic.
Kerry's stance on stem cell research is probably one of the few things I really like about the guy. It is neccesary reasearch and I know people whose work this actually effects. Sure, stem cell research will not be the end all to all disease, but the knowledge that can be gained from that research is incredibly invaluable in furthering the field of biology.
From:
http://www.safesearching.com/billmah...ime_100104.htm
Quote:
CARLIN: Yeah. Thank you for acknowledging the fact that I've been on their case quite a bit, because it's the biggest scam that was ever pulled on mankind, with this whole religion idea. It's superstition. It's responsible for more guilt and fear and shame and murder and divorce and alcoholism and war and death than any other institution. [applause] [cheers] And, you know, and if it makes some people happy—
I don't like Kerry, in part because he was raised a Catholic. If elected, he would probably have alter boys instead of interns. Instead of Monica, it could be Michael.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaoofNee
I suppose you support deforestation of the rain forests for medical research too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
Well, I for one support stem cell research. Being diabetic, I don't like the thought of blindness and amputations that I am at such a high risk for. I do not want children, in part due to the fact that my child would most likely be diabetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Yet I do NOT support slashing the rainforest.
Nor do I support drilling in Alaska for what amounts to a 6 month supply of oil.
All that would do is get some oil company just a little bit richer. And Alaska would be left with a bunch more rusting oil equipment.
I am on board with you here. I am cut out of the Nixon mold when it comes to environmental issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by JefmcC
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
So very, very true.
Strong religious beliefs are what is really helping out relations between the Middle Eastern countries right now... OH WAIT.
I'm with ya on that one. I think stem cell research could be very important and shouldn't be cut off.Quote:
Originally Posted by JefmcC
As for people wanting a strong religous president, maybe they have forgoten that in this country we have a separation of church and state. The only thing I want to hear our government talk about in relation to religion is...well I can't think of a single damn thing that the US government should do based on religion.
A lot of our Presidents have made desicions based on religion, we've had a lot of Presidents who were religious. If someone has those beliefs they're going to make desicions based on them whether they tell us or not.
I know we've had presidents that were religious and have made decisions based on their religion, what I'm saying is that no one should base their decision on electing a president because of their religous belief...unless their beliefs would lead to a lack of civil liberties or mass murders or other bad things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gohron
My big problem with religion in politics is a lot of people who have a lot of faith can not see where their faith ends and what is good for a nation starts.
Just because you believe something is bad does not mean it is bad for society.
Not everyone has the same amount of faith, or the same faith as them and they should realize this. People need room to move and be themselves. Even if you don't always agree with how they do that.
I can help. Islam and what is good for a nation are mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
oy vey Yoshi.
Anyhow, i was well aware of the presidents religious faith, he actually is very religious when he dosent have to deal with a voting base that is intolerant of religion, but the democrats, and this is one of the reasons i left them in 92, are actively antagonisitc to people with strong (or any) religious convictions. That said, actions speak far louder than declarations of faith, and ido appreciate that he works for social justice for the workign classes, but he still far too evasive on particulars of how he would fix what he considers wrong with america, and that, not where he goes to church, is what bothers me about him.
EDIT: oh and funfact, Kerry claims that he actually strongly considered the priesthood. and that his decision to go to vietnam was partially due to him feeling that god was calling him to serve.
you are right, and the ONLY place on earth with religious beleifs is the middle east, and the problems are solely religious and not at all about nationalism, tribalism, or centuries old ethnic hatreds, just straight up religion, thanks for the heads up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
Uh, but a lot of that does stem from religous differences.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
How are these similar? Especially considering deforestation HURTs medical research by destroying numerous plant and animal species that could possibly lead to more cures.
Because cells from the spines of dead babies are important for maintaining biodiversity, dah!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
I think the cultures exagerate those parts of the religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkCrow676
You don't see Christians running over Jews, or ameican Muslims bombing american buildings everyday like in that part of the world.
Consideirng how many different types of people the US has, I think we get along pretty well.
Well yes, here in the US, tolerance is something that is pretty wide spread, but he was refering to the Middle East where people have been dying for centuries because of thei religion differences. Not of course not the whole Middle East is like that, some parts are worse then othere, but there is still alot of controversy over religous beliefs in that region.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Well, the culture chooses to look at their religion in that way. They could choose to look at it in a different way.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkCrow676
Europe did. That is where all the other non-Catholic religions came from.
Yeah, but it's all justified by them by making their crusade about religion, even though it's usually what it's the least about. Religion makes it excusable, unquestionable; religion is untouchable. That applies not just there, but in many conflicts and deceptions all over throughout history.Quote:
you are right, and the ONLY place on earth with religious beleifs is the middle east, and the problems are solely religious and not at all about nationalism, tribalism, or centuries old ethnic hatreds, just straight up religion, thanks for the heads up.
We could look at it differently, as well. It's a deeply personal choice, not a public one, and using it to base judgements of someone upon, like the American public apparently is clamoring to do, is completely against the point of our majority religion and therefore rather disgusting, IMO.Quote:
Well, the culture chooses to look at their religion in that way. They could choose to look at it in a different way.
Europe did. That is where all the other non-Catholic religions came from.
again i bring up that nationalism and tribalism have given just as many justifications for the unthinkable. I do not deny that there have been wrongs done over religion, but peopel vastly overstate the proportion in relation to other causes, many of which such as nationalism are considered virtuous today. The thing i dislike about most people's perception of seperation of church and state, and i see it numerous times in this thread, is that if gives the excuse to demonize religion as the cause of all mens evils, when a more sober mind looks and sees that its usually the state that has instigated major bloodshead in the past several years(2 world wars come to mind). the church and state should be seperate because their aims are different, the state deals in the here and now, must often use violence, which is antithetical to most major religions, and yes, that includes islam, and the church(and mosque, and synagogue, and coven) has to uplift the people and give them something greater than this to look foreward to and hope for. And thats it, neither side is to be looked down upon, they are simplys bodies with different goals that both decay from their true goal when mixed. I have no problem with kerry's religious stance, though i also am not swayed to vote for him simply by virtue of his sharing a belief system with me, it was the standard omfg churchies r teh evils!!!111 that i was talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
That's a helluva decision for a 13 year old to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
poopy-head :pQuote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Kerry and the Democratic Party favors secularism over theocracy, its one of the big reasons they have my vote. It's not right or wrong, it's a matter strictly of personal preference. Unfortunately, extremists on both sides tend to overemphasize this (as extremists are want to do) and make it a 'your with us or against us' thing. I think it really all goes back to the Abortion issue, to. If that wasn't such a hot-button polarizing topic I have a feeling religion wouldn't play as much of a role in current politics as it does today.
So you are saying what? Its cool for them to look at their religion in a way that makes it awesome to be a penis? Becuase all I was saying was that it wasn't their religion that was to blame but the culture that inerprits the religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bacon McShig
Well that and conservatives come off as assholes who want NO change, and Democrats come off as babys who don't think anything through.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
"OMG Hi2 U, WE need Healcarez now, I <3 babies"
"Shut up neub, I like things the way the are now. And besides we can't afford it, so no."
"OMg U R TEH HILTER, YOU kekekeke HATE BABIES T_T"
It's like filling a room full of 80 year olds and 4 year olds. THe 80 year olds just want to do the same thing, everyday untill they die, and the 4 years old want everthing now, with out thinking about how it will effect anything or anyone, or how they will get it.
There really needs to be a third party. It could be called "I'm not a dumbass and I want to get shit done, party"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironplant
"Go ahead, throw your vote away! Muha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"
Give it a few more ellections. If things don't improve and you get a strong enough canidate, he well be ellected. I'd like to think that both sides have a lot of people getting tired of their front men being retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
That sounds good and all, but the biggest problem with your point is that tribalism and nationalism is essentially almost always divided down the lines of religion. You just have to look at the Beslan School massacre.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
The Ossetians and Chechens are vey similar, both genetically and culturally. However... the Chechens are Muslim and the Ossetians are recently converted Christians.
Don't get me wrong, im not saying religion causes wars. War is almost always caused by a mindset of your side being superior and the other side being inferior. But, show me one religion which is tolerant/compatible with all other belief structures. Almost all religions have some degree of a "superiority complex", because it's something which is needed for their survival.
How long do you think a religion would survive if it preached "Well our religion is really great, but you know, other religions are just as good, I suggest you try them all as well, they are not inferior in anyway."?
Seriously, Islam/Judaism/Christianity from an outsider perspective are so fucking similar it's not funny. They're all Abrahamic remember. But from within each of them, Islam is diametrically opposite to Judaism, Christianity is diametrically opposite to Judaism, etc. Most Muslims/Jews/Christians actually believe they are worshiping different Gods, from a theological standpoint that is ludicrous.
So, what I am trying to say is. Religions don't cause wars, but their inherent "superiority complexes" sure do.
Buddhism, Shintoism, pretty sure Hindu fits the bill as well. Pretty much every religion that doesn't fall under the Christian rainbow. These might have extremists, but there's nothing inherent in the religion that promotes intolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Actually, Hindus have a long record of atrocity and intolerance. There are as many historical reasons for that as spiritual, but they sure as heck ain't all Ghandi.
Shinto is based around the notion of purification and has a strong nationalist strain to it - Shinto ideals were largely what fueled the spiritual fires of the militarist takeover in Japan that led to World War II - kamikaze is very much a shinto term. Not there are really any devout practicing shintoists anymore.
Buddhism became perverted in both Japan and Korea, and mountain Buddhist temples actually became bandit strongholds. "Buddhist" raids on the capital and the imperial inability to deal with them were a major factor which led to the rise of the Shogunate to power in Japan. In Tibet, bloodfeuds were fought over lamaistic succession and philosophical differences.
But yeah, Abrahamistic religions win the prize for most belligerent. Once you say your religion is the only way, its adherents start to believe that since they follow that religion, whatever they think and feel has to be right and therefore beyond question. There's a very strong strain of that between the lines in the current republican message of "strong values" and "deeply held beliefs" and "strong, unwavering leadership". It's all code for a fundamentalist protestant worldview. Whether you consider that a bad thing is up to the individual, but as a general rule...
Never trust a leader who claims divine inspiration.
EDIT: Missed the point Sleeve was trying to make. Yeah, most eastern religions do not claim to be the only path, and were by and large able to coexist with one another. And in the case of traditions like Daoism or Buddhism, even recognize other religious founders as saints or great teachers without absorbing them into their own cosmology.
wow, i have to fix a few points for you there, from "within" christiantiy, there is no feel that we are worshiping a different god than islam or judaism, they have differnet lineups of prophets and laws, but its pretty well affirmed at mass that we are following the same god that was chatting with abraham and moses, i dont see where you get that interpretation. Plus, how are christianity and judaism diametricly opposed? obviously there is difference in worship due to the according of divinity to christ in christianity and not in judaeism, (not amuslim, so i cant commnet there, hopefully almaci can shed light on that one for us)but diametric opposition, im afraid you are jumping to conclusions there(or just looking for an excuse to be wordy :p ).Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
as for your "essentially almost always" i think you have to look at the whole picture, countries form when numbers of people feel a shared heritage with the others that they are joining with, that unity was usually achieved through commonalities that incuded religion. To say that nationalistic or tribalistic fights divide along religious lines is true, but they also tend to divide on lines of race and shared language as well, you have to be cautious that you dont draw a larger importance of a factor than it plays in the overall picture. there are plenty of cases where groups with the same religions are squabbling with one another, look at the turks and the kurds, both muslim, but divided over territory, germany and austria, and hungary and romania both had similar issues, and both world wars took place predominantly between christian based countries, but nationalism overroad that commonality.
Fianlly, in regards to your comment about finding a religion that is tolernat /accepting of other beleif stuctures..the funny thing is, most of them actually are, if taken on the religious texts only. Its where my old buddy nationalism comes in that religions were co-opted to create a them and us scenario.
Religion, no matter what faith, might have been a good idea at one time, but that time has long since passed. It took a massive schism of the Catholic Church for Europe to emerge from the Dark Ages, and every religion I've ever heard of has perverted (or to be fair, been perverted) the tennets of it's own faith to justify something. Some religions grow up and mature, others fade away. Islam is in the process of maturing right now. The Greeks and Romans had gods too...but thats just mythology now, just like Catholicism and Buddism and everything in between will be 2000 years from now.
It's like you don't every read my posts.
From all the stupid Evangelists at Uni that constantly tell me that Muslims and Jews don't worship God, they worship Satan. They are nutbars however...Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
"Diametrically opposed" was not my view, I think the Abrahamic Religions are pretty much the same, but have you ever heard what some Christians think of Muslims, and what some Muslims think of Christians? It ain't pretty.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
I may be getting a biased viewpoint in Australia, since over here, you're either really not religious or REALLY religious. So the Muslims and Christians tend to be fundo and rabid against each other.
Exactly, that was my point, it's not religion that causes wars, it's the divisive component which can be derived from religion that causes wars. Just like every other thing we can grab to form an "identity" to think we are superior to someone else. But unlike skin colour, Religion is active, because most of them speak of other religions as misguided or flat out wrong. You would never hear a Rabbi say, "You know, it's possible Jesus WAS the Messiah, the Christians have a point and are equals". There's no such thing as a moral lowground in religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
Bullshit, I don't really feel like whiping out my Bible for quotes. But from what I remember whenever they speak about the pagans or Jews it's like "Oh, they're good people, God's people, but it's unfortunate their beliefs are full of crap. They'll come around when they die". That's still devisive, because you believe you're RIGHT and they are WRONG.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf x
One thing is for sure, if there was no religion, no one would be fighting over Jerusalem, apart from all the awesome religious relics, that place is a hole.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
Awesome.
Tell them to move to Saudi Arabia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
Religion is a deeply personal thing and ought not to be a major deciding factor in matters of politics. Kudos to Kerry as well as the founding fathers for having that much common sense.
Our laws are based on the ractical intrests of maintaining a fair and orderly society. The ways in which they overlap with religion are generally coincidental, and the ways which are not are generally unconstitutional. Anyone running for president should know this. Hell anyone voting should, IMO.
I don't think anyone was saying that all war everywhere was started by religion. People fight for many reasons, and one of those reasons is religion, which happens to be a pretty big cause of many wars. Not all wars mind you, but many over the course of history and some even to this day.Quote:
Originally Posted by frostwolf ex
I don't know where you guys live at but around here, Video games and TV cause all wars and any other evil thing.
Just yesterday a girl got raped playing Pac-Man.
Religion is more than simple superstition, and will continue to be a fundamental part of human existence. The nature of religion will continue to transform, as it always has, but it is reflective of a naturally human ability to connect with something greater than oneself, offers means for significant personal transformation, and provides an ethical and social fabric that goes beyond the vagaries of those ethics imposed by basic demands of interaction with one's field of existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Error
The progress of science certainly won't undermine acosmotic religions like Buddhism which are more about a process of transformative exercises than any imposed teleology.
"I think it really all goes back to the Abortion issue, to. If that wasn't such a hot-button polarizing topic I have a feeling religion wouldn't play as much of a role in current politics as it does today."
But abortion is a moral issue...not a religious one. Plenty of atheists are anti-abortion.
The founding fathers were all religious (read the Declaration of Independence if you dont believe me), and the idea of "seperation of church and state" is a myth. States could've instituted an official religion if they wanted, only the Federal Gubment was prohibited from doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
True, they had that option, but it was completely contrary to what the founding fathers intended as well as the state governments. When we gained independence one of our biggest goals was to divorce ourselves from the most problematic trappings of the Old World, state-sponsored religion being one of them. Now, back then the issue was more a debate between different denominations of Christianity within the differently settled colonial states coming together, but it has evolved in our modern time to include all religions being equally valued by the people who practice them and not being in any way endorsed or enforced by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
Yes, the founding fathers were religious men, but more than that they were pragmatic and far-thinking. They had seen the constant warfare in Europe from the many clashes between state-sponsored religions, and knew that if they were to have a more cohesive society it would need democracy and religious inclusion rather than exclusion.
Really? I've never met one, thought I've always thought they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
From a religious standpoint abortion shouldn't bother them. Killing is a sin, yes, but no more than cussing, being hateful, stealing, lying, lusting or any other sin people do on an average day. If you aren't going to blow peoples houses up for cussing, then why are you doing it to people who abort babies? And besides wouldn't the baby go to heaven? What sort of God sends babies to hell?
Atheist should really be angry about abortion. They are the ones who think this life is the only shot you get at ever doing anything. When you abort a baby you take that shot away, regardless of when you thinking that mass of shit becomes alive.
You suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
P.S. I don't support abortion, I support choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
You wanna talk about how weird I think it is for prochoice people want to ban guns?
Like killing people is so horrible that we must ban guns, becuase you know, guns fly around like Megatron and Shockwave and shoot people, and yet killing babys is just fucking awesome.
The democratic party makes no sense to me on so many issues.
Simple, guns kill people, abortions don't kill people.... (just kidding)
You tell me the exact moment life begins, and how the rights of one being can be more important than another, and we'll get a clear cut answer on the right choice about abortion. Otherwise, abortion is the most complex moral/ethical issue, with no right answer, and it simply hurts my brain how much it sucks thinking about it.
I believe abortion is wrong, but I'm not going to push my morality on others, that would be the Christian thing to do :)
I'm just messing with you. I'm all for abortion and guns. Better some bitch mother aborts her baby now than raze it, or to be more exact, NOT raze it and it grow up a little thug. So when I'm 45 I come out side and the punk bitch has jacked my shit to buy him some smack to make himself feel good because his moma didn't love him enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
It is wrong for people to use it as a form of birth control. I don't give a shit when you think the blob is alive. If you're to damn lazy to get off your ass and get some birth control, use condoms, or something along those lines to keep from getting pregnant, and then you abort it you are a horrible human being. It doesn't matter if its a blob of chemicals or if you think it is alive. That person is horrible.
But on the flipside of that, someone like that probably won't be a good mother, and I don't need their stupid ass kids jacking my cds out of my car, so abort away.
I'm not talking about rape victims or something like that. Everyone with a brain should believe in having a choice if something like that happens.
So yeah, I'm all for shitty people killing their future shitty children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
The world has really crushed your spirit :(
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Mzo
I don't know about that. One of the big reasons I'm against gun banning is because I don't think it solves the real problem. A simple banning doesn't do anything to help the people who live in an environment that promotes killing. You can ban guns and those people still have to deal with those issues day in and day out.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Most of those problems are social and could be changed. Banning guns to fix it essentially is just throwing those people away to deal with their own hells. It is like saying "I don't really care about you or your problems, I just don't want to have to worry about you killing my kids." I think that is a horrible way to treat your fellow man.
Instead of banning guns I would really like to see more done to help these communities.
I think that is pretty upbeat myself. =P
And I'm undecided on abortion.
POST COUNT PLUS ONE
STOP SPELLING BABIES WRONG!!
I DO WHAT I WANT
WHATEVA
It's raise, IP. If mothers were 'razing' their babies they'd be destroying them, conquering them. Like Conan. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
You make it sound like athiests are the only one who stand to gain from the separation of church and state. Church and state were seperated to protect religion, not to devalue it. Religion is only safe when it's left to the church and the individual. It's there to protect the Christians, too. This has nothing to do with what the founding father's did on Sunday, it's about what they were smart enough to commit to paper.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
The founding fathers were religious (most of them, anyway), and like any intelligent religious individual with a beleif in freedom they did their best to keep it seperate from the law of the land. It's documented historical fact that Jefferson downplayed the use of religious language in the constitution. Jefferson himself was a known agnostic, but he did so at the advising of Ben Franklin, who was not.
Under the constitution's structuring of bill of rights, States could NOT in fact violate any one of them. The constitution was a direct reaction against the way things were done in England, where the state headed the church, and they strongly opposed this. Enough of this revisionist bullshit which has never been how the constitution was interpreted.
It's not a practical ethical issue. It supposes some sort of abstract notion of the soul to hold much water. You can come up with metaphysical arguments for why the fetus is a person, but there's no sane way to argue that they are members of society, so many would say it's not the domain of law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
I love the, "This country was founded on religious ideals, etc." argument.
This country was NOT founded on anything having to do with religion. This country was founded on commerce.
Jefferson actually had lots of doubts about his religion. He wanted to believe in christianity but as a scientific man he didnt believe in the mysticism in it. He even rewrote the bible to exclude all the "magic" parts of it and focus on the helpful lessons and ideal preached instead.
I didn't know this, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
So basically he condensed it down to a few pages?Quote:
He even rewrote the bible to exclude all the "magic" parts of it and focus on the helpful lessons and ideal preached instead.
I was thinking about this last night while watching the debate and then later Bill Maher. Weren't Jefferson and I think Ben Franklin amongst others known as Diast or something, which was a very liberal form of christianity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mman
"It supposes some sort of abstract notion of the soul to hold much water. You can come up with metaphysical arguments for why the fetus is a person, but there's no sane way to argue that they are members of society"
No it doesn't. And a one month old baby that has never left the house isn't a member of soceity either...so what
It's a matter of how far back we can take this idea of 'life'. I mean, if we're going to consider embryos human life, then why not sperm? Does that therefore make condoms weapons of mass genocide? A line has to be drawn, but I for one have no idea where exactly to draw it.
Eh, I'm for either,. CONQUER THOSE BITCHESQuote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I kind of knew it was wrong at the time, but the z had a nice urban look to it, so I left it.
I thought raze meant more like.. you know burning?
Word web dictionary.... 1. Tear down so as to make flat with the ground
I think this thing is a really half ass dictionary.
Babykillaz skrate outta Oaktown, ya heard?Quote:
I kind of knew it was wrong at the time, but the z had a nice urban look to it, so I left it.
I share your relatively pessimistic outlook on abortive mothers, though. An abortion isn't something people go willy-nilly into, if someone is even thinking about it seriously they either wouldn't be good at raising kids or shouldn't be trusted with kids anyway.
=/ well abortion is still a bad thing. It doesn't really matter if it is killing or not. You are screwing a baby over. Now I'm not talking about rape victims and shit like that.
But I'm all for abortion. Because good mothers do not abort. Someone who is going to raise a cihld well, probably isn't going abort their baby. A bad mother will. And when I say bad mother I don't mean evil. A bad mother could be poor, to young, or other wise unable to take care of a child.
You can argue all day on how evil and wrong it is. But a better thing for you to think about is this, what is more wrong? Killing Babies or letting someone be raised by a shitty mother and then grow up and live a worthless life? And don't bring up Beethoven. When was the last Beethoven that came out of being raised by a 14 year odl girl on foodstamps?
Yeah. My feeling on abortion is that it's fine if you get that accident or mistake, and you're some Teenager that is only going to lead the child to have one shitty life. As long as you don't use it as a form of birth control, It may be kind of ... don't know the word for it... but it's kind of that. But I see the 16 year old girl (who damn well better learn her lesson) has more of a right to abort, than the 30 year old middle-class citizen...Quote:
But I'm all for abortion. Because good mothers do not abort. Someone who is going to raise a cihld well, probably isn't going abort their baby. A bad mother will. And when I say bad mother I don't mean evil. A bad mother could be poor, to young, or other wise unable to take care of a child.
Which is why I said in I think your thread, if you believe in reincarnation then just think of it as a chance for that baby's soul to go to a mother that won't fuck it up.
Yeah, and that is why I don't know why Christans make such a big deal out of killing babies. The thing should go to heaven, so who cares, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief~Silver
And anyone who argues that babies go to hell has issues. I don't care what the bible says, if you think aborted babies go to hell, you have issues.
His version of the Bible was a ten page short story about Jesus fishing. He didn't catch anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike
He must not have remembered when that holy bastard stole my golf clubs and wouldn't give them back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Opaque
Exactly, without "the soul" in the argument, it's really hard to draw the line of where "life begins". Because in reality no new life has ever been made since the first abiogenesis... that is... if all life on earth resulted from the same abiogenesis event, we're all (plants and animals) just mutated satellites of the same "life". You were made from a living cell of your mum, and a living cell of your dad, so does the union of two lving cells mean new life has been made? I don't think so. It's the same life, in a different form, which will eventually lead to a new consciousness being formed.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
So eating hamburgers is like masturbation?
More like suicide.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
I don't care for the religion but I grew up with it, so I can explain why Catholics get pissed about babies being killed.
They wouldn't go to Heaven, they'd go to Purgatory, because they haven't had the chance to get baptized, and so they haven't been cleansed of original sin. The church feels that it's not their fault though, so they wouldn't go to Hell. Enough praying would send them to Heaven apparently, just like it would send all people who fail the Heaven test but don't actually earn a trip to the gates of Hell.
No, but felating a hotdog is.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Are you arguing for infanticide or against aborition? I don't want to hear the slippery-slope garbage. That isn't really an argument. I want to hear a non-metaphysical justification against abortion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
And realy, don't want to get into this here. It's a fine thing to debate, and if you'd like to discuss it further, I'm quite willing, but make a new thread.
Well, I think I'm pro-choice, but I'm not sure. For one, i think that it'd be stupid for, say, a 20 year old full of potential with their whole life ahead of them to have to leave university and get a shitty job to support their child. But on the other hand, abortion is denying existance to future humans. I know many people born from their mother getting knocked up when they were young, and to think that if the mother decided to abort they would never have existed is kinda daunting.
I'm undecided, and I can't see me making my mind up any time soon.
firstly, PLENTY of bad mothers keep their kids and plenty of potentially great mothers abort.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
and your last statement about which is worse is pretty stupid. If you had to choose between being poor or being dead, which would you pick? and if the mother made the wrong decision and the kid would rather be dead, there's always suicide!
THATS SOME HOT SHIT RIGHT THERE.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
That it wouldn't be needed if everybody in the world was responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
Yeah it would be nice if people would have some sense about sex and quit fucking or get a really good form of birth control if they didn't want kids.
Then this wouldn't be an issue.
And? That sentences means nothing. It isn't like I said it was some cosmic law both had to do as I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
I'm not asking what would I choose if I was asked. Of corse I would want to live. I'm a human, we are really big on that staying alive thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
The question was for society, what burden would it like more? Dead babies or bad citizens.
Regardless if plenty of bad mothers do not abort and plenty of good mothers do (which I'm taking your word on, I've yet to meet these people. Maybe it is a Australian thing), the worse off the parents the more negatively it will effect the kid. You can take any person, and I'm willing to bet if they have a kid at a better time in their life the kid will turn out better for it.
We all want to think we are super gods that are not effect by the lives we have, but sadly we are no such god. There are few thousand shitty thugs in their 20s and 30s right now that prove my point.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that the world would be better off with less shitty people, or how those people could be better off being born under better circumstances.
Any country or state of a country that legalises abortion must legalise all other forms of killing too. Is abortion wrong? I don't know but to legalise abortion while other forms of murder are legal is hypocrisy. Religion has nothing to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogacuda
And what's all this about young women's wasted lives when they fall pregnant? A woman's life doesn't end when she has her first child. And how do you know the abortion won't end up having an even more negative affect on her emotions than having the child?
And lets face it: We all know that the whole idea of abortion is based on a vague technicality - The baby is still inside the womb so it's not a real baby. That's just bullshit. The anti-abortionists know it too but that doesn't stop them using it to get away with the killing.
Did you know that the Hmong people of Laos do not see babies as human or living until they are given a name, which is the only way their soul can be called, thus becoming a member of the human race?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Case in point. You're a fucking moron that is pushing your cultural beliefs of "a life" onto others. It's impossible to determine the exact point a "new life" is made without using metaphysical shit, as Frogacuda said.
You are the continuation of a living cell from your mother and a living cell from your father, no new life is ever made, only new consciousness. If you believe things such as the morning after pill are wrong, you should hold a little funeral every time you sprog (jizz).
what? you said that good mothers keep their kids and bad mothers don't, and I said not always.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronPlant
Technically, we're both wrong, as in order to either be a good or bad mother you have to give birth.
Quote:
I'm not asking what would I choose if I was asked. Of corse I would want to live. I'm a human, we are really big on that staying alive thing.
The question was for society, what burden would it like more? Dead babies or bad citizens.
Regardless if plenty of bad mothers do not abort and plenty of good mothers do (which I'm taking your word on, I've yet to meet these people. Maybe it is a Australian thing), the worse off the parents the more negatively it will effect the kid. You can take any person, and I'm willing to bet if they have a kid at a better time in their life the kid will turn out better for it.
We all want to think we are super gods that are not effect by the lives we have, but sadly we are no such god. There are few thousand shitty thugs in their 20s and 30s right now that prove my point.
I don’t see how anyone can argue that the world would be better off with less shitty people, or how those people could be better off being born under better circumstances.
Well, the thing is, the burden on society thing isn't what the prime concern is. Denying a human the chance to live is. Terminating a foetus because it has a chance of growing up into a scumbag makes as much sense as killing criminals because they might become repeating offenders.
All of the decisions a woman has to make regarding abortion in the horribly complex situation of getting knocked up must be made with the best interests for her baby and herself. Fuck society.
The same could be said of laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
No, not really, though they generally do legalize other forms of killing of non-persons. This is a pretty far-out claim to make. There are different standards for killing of persons and non-persons in every society, and it just has to do with the fact that, while biologically and genetically human, a fetus is pretty clearly not a person yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
As long as they can hide the fact that baby fetuses are filled with oil, we'll never have to worry about this administration supporting abortions...
We aren't properly taking care of kids that are neglected and unwanted now, while abortion is an option. Making it illegal is only going to increase that number, probably signifigantly. The problem that I have with pro-life people is that they seem much more concerned with giving potential kids life, not neccessarily ensuring a quality life. If you are pro-life and are not planning in earnest to adopt or at least become a big brother if abortion were made illegal, let alone now, you are a hypocrite. You are saying "I care about this issue, but I won't bear the consequences."
The other big problem I have with doing away with abortion is that, if people are not given the option of whether to be stuck with a child or not, criminal neglect and even murder of children will increase. I would rather see 10,000 fetuses die before they are fully self-aware and cognizant than to see one baby left in a dumpster to die and feel the pain of a horrible, unneccessary death.
Be realistic: Two people have sex and life begins. It's that simple. Don't try to wiggle out of it by saying "I'm only a little pregnant" or "It's not a person yet" etc.
All that other stuff about cells and sperm and eggs is just confusion generated by pro-abortionists. It's just that some people are gullible enough to believe it. They're the kind of people who'll believe anything if they hear it often enough.
And nowhere did I say that abortion should be allowed or disallowed. I'm trying to cut though the hypocrisy that says it's OK to kill a child in the womb for your convenience but not to kill an adult you don't like. Neither is wrong or both are wrong. You can't have it both ways.
Killing is not illegal. Killing people is. Personhood is the issue, not life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Not trying to wiggle out of it, I don't think it's an admirable practice. I wouldn't support it were people as a whole more responsible than they've shown to be. But they're not. It's ugly, it's morally wrong, but I just feel society would suffer rather than benefit from it not existing.
That is your opinion. I say fuck her.Quote:
Originally Posted by arjue
and you honestly consider them to be representative of the same faith that me and veggie and some others talk about? Its called a straw man, i would think better of you than to think you actually beleived in one.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
again, you draw from some extreme examples, i have seen what some christians think of muslims, i also know what other christins think of muslims, they really havent done themselves any favors in the PR. department lately, but seperating a short term anger from a long term ecclesiastical worldview really isnt that hard.Quote:
"Diametrically opposed" was not my view, I think the Abrahamic Religions are pretty much the same, but have you ever heard what some Christians think of Muslims, and what some Muslims think of Christians? It ain't pretty.
fair enough, though i think you limit your scope of the issue by just attending to local examples of a group, but i can understand that. I would argue that the fundamentalists are not "really" religious per se, as they are really into the bells and whistles of religious behavior, if anything from my religious perspective, thsoe guys are actually really anti-religious, as both jesus and mohammed were far more calm and accepting than those guys,these guys seem more to worship their own rage and judgement.Quote:
I may be getting a biased viewpoint in Australia, since over here, you're either really not religious or REALLY religious. So the Muslims and Christians tend to be fundo and rabid against each other.
[quote]
Exactly, that was my point, it's not religion that causes wars, it's the divisive component which can be derived from religion that causes wars. Just like every other thing we can grab to form an "identity" to think we are superior to someone else. But unlike skin colour, Religion is active, because most of them speak of other religions as misguided or flat out wrong. You would never hear a Rabbi say, "You know, it's possible Jesus WAS the Messiah, the Christians have a point and are equals". There's no such thing as a moral lowground in religion.
[/qoute]
well, religion is a kind of mutually exclusive thing, if a rabbi said that jesus really was the messiah, then he would realy be abandoning his religion and gravitating towards christianity, there are specific elements that make or break a religious faith, If jesus was god, then christians are right and everyone else is not quite right, if mohammed was really the true prophet of god, then jesus was not god, and therefore chirstianity is wrong and islam is right. Thats why ecumentical agreements generally work by agreeing on the general parts but kind of not talkign about the specifics. Im pretty good friends with my father's pastor and the local rabbi, and we broadly can talk religion and get along very well, but there are topics we dont exactly get into because we know that there are points we cannot agree on, so we agree to disagree, we arent taking the "moral lowground, because we all beleive our respective creeds absolutely, but we all agree that we are close enough on the topic that we dont need to fight about it.
see above, there always will be mutual exclusivity, thats just life and you work best agreeing to disagree, but you see the person as wrong but a good person, anything else is logically hard to hold.Quote:
Bullshit, I don't really feel like whiping out my Bible for quotes. But from what I remember whenever they speak about the pagans or Jews it's like "Oh, they're good people, God's people, but it's unfortunate their beliefs are full of crap. They'll come around when they die". That's still devisive, because you believe you're RIGHT and they are WRONG.
One thing is for sure, if there was no religion, no one would be fighting over Jerusalem, apart from all the awesome religious relics, that place is a hole.
you seriously ignore the appeal of the east jerusalem mini golf course, conquering people get one free game for each group of 4, and a free ice cream cone for a hole in one on the 18th hole.
i purposly avoided bumping this topic to answer these because i saw it dying yesterday and decided to let it go, these topics usually dont go many good places, and usually just reveal a lot of ignorance and bigotry and cause me to lose a lot of faith in my tnl bretheren, but heres the answers for astro, and i exunt.
What ever. Thats your view point on it, and just becuase you don't agree with what was said, doesn't make them gullible idiots that believe in anything. I have never understood how people can get all pissed off over abortion because it is taking a life. Well I got news for you, millions of lives are lost everyday at the hands of humans and no one gives a shit about that. Yes a human life is more important than that of an animal because as humans we have a sense of compassion (well most people do anyway) for our fellow man, but that doesn't mean our life is actualy more important than an animals life, or any other living thing. They have just as much right to live as we do, but its all part of life. I'm not sure what the count of abortions are up to right now, but I'm guessing its a shit load, and right now, we don't need to be getting a shit load of new babies every year to continue increasng the world population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
So we should we give people the ability to kill off these unborn children because we run possums over in our car sometime? Those are equivalent things in your head?Quote:
Yes a human life is more important than that of an animal because as humans we have a sense of compassion (well most people do anyway) for our fellow man, but that doesn't mean our life is actualy more important than an animals life, or any other living thing.
LOL. What a horrible argument. So maybe the United States should have a one-child-per-family law like China, right? So the population doesnt go up?Quote:
They have just as much right to live as we do, but its all part of life. I'm not sure what the count of abortions are up to right now, but I'm guessing its a shit load, and right now, we don't need to be getting a shit load of new babies every year to continue increasng the world population
Look, what you are basically saying is that there are too many child births in the US, and abortion is needed to regulate that. Wow! Unbelievable! Thats one of the cruelest, most awful things Ive ever read on TNL (that is, unless you were saying it with irony, and I dont think you were). What we need to do is fix the mess that is leading to all these babies being born, not killing them off before they pop out of the womb.
BS Diffusion, that is not even close to one of the meanest things said on TNL and you know it.
Spontaneous generation was disproved about 350 years ago bub. Llife in a non-metaphysical sense never "begins", it changes and splits off, but it never "begins". "Life", in the definition you say it "the term of an organism's existence" is completely a cultural thing, metaphysical, it has no factual basis in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
Oh shit... I forgot that when you have sex, a bat signal shines out of your arse and up to heaven, and then God knows to send his army of storks to drop magical cabbages that teleport into the mother's "stomach".Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
I totally agree, and when women miscarriage, lets try those bitches for manslaughter (third degree murder).Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
That would make sense, right? Can we take pregnant smokers and drinkers to trial for attempted murder? Shouldn't the government designate a specific diet and provide such for the mother to insure that the unborn has the most healthy diet possible?Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
If youre just playing devil's advocate, thats charming, but this is very much a cultural discussion. Fact is, if the idea of "life" as you say has "no factual basis in reality", then all forms of murder should be legal, because, hey, fuck it. So if I wanna go and kill some random kid in the library that should be fine because life has no basis in reality. Puh-leeeze.Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroBlue
Now, if youre saying that "Life" should be, to the law, whatever we define it as - so life begins when the sperm enters the egg, so abortion should be illegal because its murder, or left begins when you pop out of the womb, so abortion should be legal... thats a different thing and open to interpretation. I guess thats where the problem stems. I for one say it begins with the former but obviously someone who is pro-abortion would believe something closer to the latter.
Wow, way to take everything I said out of context. I said clear as day that human life is more important then other forms of life but that is our view point on it. God you are such a fuck sometimes. The point I was trying to make is people don't like abortion because it is taking a life, when life is taken by humans everyday. Is it the same thing? Not quite, but who are we to say we are the most important thing in the universe and nothing matters but us.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
And as for regulating child births, if abortion is outlawed and people keeping having unprotected sex when they don't want kids, then yes maybe it will be needed. The world isn't amazingly getting bigger every year, in a sense its getting smaller and more people are falling into poverty. Do we really need to add so many more people into this world when so manyare suffering?
But do we need something like abortion to regulate it? I mean, lets be real here. Do the ends justify the means? I really doubt it. It's like saying the solution to America's oil dependence is killing families who own more than one car.Quote:
And as for regulating child births, if abortion is outlawed and people keeping having unprotected sex when they don't want kids, then yes maybe it will be needed. The world isn't amazingly getting bigger every year, in a sense its getting smaller and more people are falling into poverty. Do we really need to add so many more people into this world when so manyare suffering?
Besides, the world's population problems do not stem from this country or Europe, whose population is growing at a fairly normal and healthy rate (actually, in Europe, the population is shrinking, but thats something else). The world's population problems are coming from 3rd world places like India or Subsaharan Africa. Its why health officials are making such a push for contraception and female education in these areas (there is a correlation between level of education and number of children, believe it or not).
So unless you are taking all those shoulda-been-chopped-up-with-the-coat-hanger babies and shipping them off to New Delhi, they arent part of the world's impending population crisis.