Powell endorses Obama
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is? It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby. I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception. So you can see how it is hard for me to get my arms around taking the life of one innocent victim in order to alleviate some of the pain inflicted on another.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
modified on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:18 PM
-
WEll, what I don't get is that it seems the discussion is polarised around two views 1 - the womans body is hers and she can do what she likes with it 2 - all abortion is wrong, the woman has no rights at all I don't agree with either of these positions, I think both are too extreme. I don't agree with abortion as a form of birth control, but I do believe that there are times when it should be considered as a reasonable option. I don't believe that bunch of cells that are madly dividing == a living human being, or that said bunch of cells should take precedence over a living human being.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - the womans body is hers and she can do what she likes with it
This is an "extreme" position? I'd like to hear your (non-extreme) position. Also, is that statement extreme only for women?
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
I was responding generally to this line: Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president and the approving response of those who otherwise express horror at stalwart, traditional christians becoming president. I was not referring to Obama. Frankly, I think it is entirely healthy that westerners would be less comfortable with a muslim becoming president than a christian. ANd I think we shouild be able to unapologetically express that view in a free society without having some lefty spewing deadly political venom at us.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
And of course, one expects Oakman, the Liar-in-Chief to misrepresent things. You pathetic damned fool, did you really imagine I didn't know you'd try that?
Ilíon wrote:
And of course, one expects Oakman, the Liar-in-Chief to misrepresent things
I have such a nasty habit of bookmarking your more egregious quotes, don't I? And what better way of misrepresenting you than to quote you word for word and provide a link to your entire confused pronouncement. No wonder you no longer have the balls to actually voice your own opinion.
Ilíon wrote:
did you really imagine I didn't know you'd try that?
I blind-sided you, who are you kidding? Just admit it, Troy, you aren't a Christian, according to your own standards. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Christian Graus wrote:
1 - the womans body is hers and she can do what she likes with it
This is an "extreme" position? I'd like to hear your (non-extreme) position. Also, is that statement extreme only for women?
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
This is an "extreme" position? I'd like to hear your (non-extreme) position. Also, is that statement extreme only for women?
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies. It is hardly the fault of the legal system that women are biologically designed to bare children. The question is when is the child a distinct individual with the same rights as the women bearing it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I was not referring to Obama.
Ok, I apologise
Stan Shannon wrote:
lefty spewing deadly political venom at us.
Oily is many things, but hardly a cobra
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Oily is many things, but hardly a cobra
Perhaps, but that is what Powell's quoted comment was intended as. There has been no effort by the McCain administration to exploit Obama's muslim connections. It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ilíon wrote:
ou *cannot* explain your irrational, intellectually dishonest (and anti-Christian) "argument." That's why you have to resort to emotive misdirection.
I'll take that for a no then. You can't defend your view, you just hold it blindly because you've been told to.
Ilíon wrote:
There are two (or even three) persons immediately involved in all abortions. I speak, of course, not of the "doctor" and "nurses," but of the baby, the mother, and sometimes the father. Of these two (or three), one of them always ends up dead, that being the whole point.
OK, I see. So, so long as the maximum number of people are alive, quality of life means nothing ? Protecting victims means nothing ? Should the guy who raped her even be charged and go to jail ? I mean, the baby needs a father, right ? you're spouting retoric, but you're not actually answering me. Why does the girl who was raped have no rights ? Where does the baby end up ? Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
you're spouting retoric, but you're not actually answering me.
It's logically impossible to answer a fool, or a liar (refuting a liar is a different matter). Since I am a rational being who tries always to be logical and honest, I don't attempt the logically impossible.
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
My point of view, FWIW, is that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong, but that education is more important than prohibition. However, to flat out ban all abortion, including in the sort of cases I am talking about, is also wrong. There's a grey area.
You really ought to work on that illogical and irrational contradiction. Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as grey -- grey is merely black and white that we haven't yet separated. Frequently because we refuse even to look and see that it can be separated.
-
Al Beback wrote:
This is an "extreme" position? I'd like to hear your (non-extreme) position. Also, is that statement extreme only for women?
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies. It is hardly the fault of the legal system that women are biologically designed to bare children. The question is when is the child a distinct individual with the same rights as the women bearing it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
No. We tell them what they should do, which is totally different. They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
No. We tell them what they should do, which is totally different. They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Actually we also limit people's choices all the time also, even when it involves their own bodies. We are not, nor have we ever been a libertarian society. But, fine, have the government encode that concept into law and the issue will be resolved. I'll be happy with whatever law our elected representatives establish on the issue. Hell, as far as I'm concerned they can define human life as beginning at the first fart, the first intelligible spoken word, or the first algebra equation solved - as long as it represents the actual will of the people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama-in-no-uncertain-terms.aspx[^] In addition, I found this quite powerful"
And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?
oilFactotum wrote:
And it is permitted to be said such things as, "Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president?
Yes, that was one of my favourite bits too.
John Carson
-
I was responding generally to this line: Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president and the approving response of those who otherwise express horror at stalwart, traditional christians becoming president. I was not referring to Obama. Frankly, I think it is entirely healthy that westerners would be less comfortable with a muslim becoming president than a christian. ANd I think we shouild be able to unapologetically express that view in a free society without having some lefty spewing deadly political venom at us.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I think it is entirely healthy that westerners would be less comfortable with a muslim becoming president than a christian.
That is a complete mis-characterisation. The left has voted, quite comfortably, for one Christian after another. Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
We tell people all the time what they can and cannot do with their bodies.
No. We tell them what they should do, which is totally different. They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Obama's plan gives me a $400 per year tax cut. McCain's plan gives me a $80 per year tax cut. Would rather be one of the lucky few to have taxes raised by Obama. (Someone on the Internet)
Al Beback wrote:
No. We tell them what they should do, which is totally different. They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Then why is suicide illegal - even for terminally ill patients?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Al Beback wrote:
They still have a... hmmm, what's the word I'm looking for here..., oh yeah, Choice.
Actually we also limit people's choices all the time also, even when it involves their own bodies. We are not, nor have we ever been a libertarian society. But, fine, have the government encode that concept into law and the issue will be resolved. I'll be happy with whatever law our elected representatives establish on the issue. Hell, as far as I'm concerned they can define human life as beginning at the first fart, the first intelligible spoken word, or the first algebra equation solved - as long as it represents the actual will of the people.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
as long as it represents the actual will of the people
I vote for first algebra equation solved. Gives parents a fair amount of time to decide whether they made a mistake or not.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Oily is many things, but hardly a cobra
Perhaps, but that is what Powell's quoted comment was intended as. There has been no effort by the McCain administration to exploit Obama's muslim connections. It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
Martin Luther King famously said that he looked forward to the day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is Obama himself who takes exception to being called by his muslim middle name.
Martin Luther King famously said that he looked forward to the day when people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry? Wouldn't bigotry be exactly the opposite - not wanting to be called by your given name because it sounds muslim? And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this issue?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Frankly, I think it is entirely healthy that westerners would be less comfortable with a muslim becoming president than a christian.
That is a complete mis-characterisation. The left has voted, quite comfortably, for one Christian after another. Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
John Carson wrote:
The belief among many Republicans is apparently that it is appropriate that people should be judged by their middle names. It is hard to imagine a clearer demonstration of what contemptible tiny-brained bigots currently infest the Republican party.
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry? Wouldn't bigotry be exactly the opposite - not wanting to be called by your given name because it sounds muslim? And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this issue?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? How can calling someone by a name which they themselves are apparently proud of represent an act of bigotry?
Are you really that dumb or just playing dumb? Why do you think they use his middle name? Do they use anyone else's middle name? Why the difference? It is because they realise that many of their supporters are tiny-brained and bigoted enough to consider that this is a mark against Obama.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And wouldn't your own attitude represent bigotry against republicans who have done absolutely nothing wrong as a group regarding this issue?
I was careful. I referred to "many Republicans", not simply to "Republicans".
John Carson
-
John Carson wrote:
Some fundamentalist Christians give pause, as undoubtedly would fundamentalist Muslims.
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, you're comfortable with them as long as they believe what you want them to believe? Why isn't that bigotry?
People who hold any religious beliefs do not believe what I want them to believe. Fundamentalists are a problem because of 1. the policy positions that fundamentalism implies and with which I disagree, 2. the quality of mind (dogmatic, not evidence-based) that is characteristic of fundamentalists and which leads to poor decision making in government.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Christian Graus: He accused me of not thinking, of just relying on emotion. Ilíon: Which, lo and behold, is exactly, and all, you proceded to do. Christian Graus: Well, again, you started it.
You're such a liar. But, even if you weren't lying, how is "he started it" a justification for your anti-rationality? Let's give you a little run-down, Mr InveterateLiar: Ilíon "starts" it[^]: "Anyone who advocates for abortion is not a CHristian. Anyone who supports abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who makes excuses for abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who will not admit that abortion is sin is not a Christian." Christian Graus doesn't even try to make an anti-rational appeal to emotion[^]:" So ( and I realise I am again asking you to think and discuss here, so feel free to call me dishonest and be done with it ), if a 9 year old girl is repeatedly raped by her step father and becomes pregnant, you'd say that she should be denied an abortion ?" Ilíon responds emotionally[^]:"Did the unborn child this 9 year-old is carrying rape her? Will murdering her unborn child unrape her? Why is it that you people like to toss about emotions as being the basis to "reason" ... but refuse to actually reason?" The ever-rational Christian Graus displays more the logical reasoning for which he is so famed[^]:"OK, good. So you're completely blind. You're saying that the child in this case ( the 9 yo ) doesn't matter to you at all. She has no rights, not even the right to sympathy. And, of course, the child she goes on to raise, is goin
Ilíon wrote:
You're such a liar. But, even if you weren't lying, how is "he started it" a justification for your anti-rationality?
Well, I accept that you didn't start arguing from emotion. Because you refuse to actually present any rationale for your views whatsoever. I am left to assume your arguments are the same ones I've heard elsewhere, because if indeed you're a font of rare wisdom, you're keeping it to yourself.
Ilíon wrote:
Let's give you a little run-down, Mr InveterateLiar:
ROTFL !!!
Ilíon wrote:
Anyone who advocates for abortion is not a CHristian. Anyone who supports abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who makes excuses for abortion is not a Christian. Anyone who will not admit that abortion is sin is not a Christian."
OK, but why should anyone believe this ? I mean, on what basis have you defended this view point ?
Ilíon wrote:
Will murdering her unborn child unrape her?
How is this not an appeal to emotion ? That's exactly what it is, 'murdering her unborn child'.....
Ilíon wrote:
We already see that Mr Graus is both anti-rational and a liar.
What you are is self evident, there's no need for me to say anything further on that front. But, again, that doesn't change that you're incapable of defending your view point. You did ask some emotionally loaded questions, which led me to believe that your reasons for opposing abortion are based on emotion. IF you have anything else, why not spit it out ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Why is the non sentient group of cells dividing in her stomach more important than she is ?
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is? It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby. I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception. So you can see how it is hard for me to get my arms around taking the life of one innocent victim in order to alleviate some of the pain inflicted on another.
Gary Kirkham Forever Forgiven and Alive in the Spirit "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. Me blog, You read
modified on Sunday, October 19, 2008 8:18 PM
Gary Kirkham wrote:
But is that "non sentient group of cells" less important than she is?
My question is, is it MORE important than she is ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
It would seem, in this case, there are two innocent victims of the rape, the girl and her unborn baby.
Well, sure. So, are you suggesting that the one that is already capable of reason and emotion, be forced to suffer for the rest of her life for the sake of the one that is not yet capable of any reason, thought, or knowledge of it's existance ? Should she not have any choice here ?
Gary Kirkham wrote:
I don't want this to degrade into a "when does life begin" debate, but it is my conviction that it begins at conception.
*grin* well, I am certain it doesn't occur at birth, however, there's no way that there's a human there at conception, in any form that makes sense. And, if we want to argue for the soul, surely if there's a soul in that tiny group of dividing cells, it would not go to hell for having been aborted ? I am not sure I'd want to nominate when life starts, but I am certain that, for example, taking a medication that causes a miscarriage during the first weeks after conception, is not murder. Beyond that, I don't like it, I am against it as a form of birth control, I think to say the mother has rights and the child has none, is insane. However, on the other hand, I can see places where it's not as black and white as we'd perhaps like it to be.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.