Kentucky: Most Embarrassing


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby ExeterAcademy1978 » Tue May 25, 2010 2:56 pm

SQUACKEE wrote:Paul stated no abortion ever, not even rape or mothers survival, WOW! :shock:


If someone truly believes that abortion is the killing of another human being, which can simply revolve around when somebody believes personhood begins and for many is at conception, what other logical conclusion is there? If someone is raped, it doesn't mean it is no longer murder. If it is for the mother's survival, it still remains murder of another individual***.

***This is not my personal opinion, but I can understand and respect the logic if someone truly believe in this position that it is a perfectly logical consequence and perhaps is more respectable than looser anti-abortion stances.
ExeterAcademy1978
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby gh » Tue May 25, 2010 3:04 pm

lonewolf wrote:I consider myself conservative rather than Republican or Libertarian. I'm not sure I know what Libertarianism is. I agree with some tenets of professed Libertarians and disagree with others. The same is true of my response to Republicans and Democrats. I did not agree with the platform of Ron Paul. I only recently became aware of the existence of Rand Paul. He has not grabbed my attention or interest. (Nearly) all politicians say dumb, contradictory things..
I will not offer an example but some have it down to a science..


I'm sure you're in the same boat as most Americans (or people of any nation): you defy the one-size-fits-all kind of party that the radicals on both sides are trying to espouse in these bipartisinship-is-a-swear-word days.

Still, one of the greatest strengths, IMHO, of the American 2-party system—with fairly wide platforms—is that you get more functional government than you do in an atmosphere where multiple fringe parties spring up (the union of blond left-handed dwarves), each with an agenda of their own, and coalition governments become the norm.
gh
 
Posts: 46307
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 25, 2010 3:28 pm

ExeterAcademy1978 wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Paul stated no abortion ever, not even rape or mothers survival, WOW! :shock:


If someone truly believes that abortion is the killing of another human being, which can simply revolve around when somebody believes personhood begins and for many is at conception, what other logical conclusion is there? If someone is raped, it doesn't mean it is no longer murder. If it is for the mother's survival, it still remains murder of another individual***.

***This is not my personal opinion, but I can understand and respect the logic if someone truly believe in this position that it is a perfectly logical consequence and perhaps is more respectable than looser anti-abortion stances.

I agree with you that a rape and incest exception makes the whole pro-life argument logically incoherent. However, most of the bible thumpers that I know believe in making exceptions to save the life of the mother but not for rape and incest and I think that's a logically coherent position.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby ExeterAcademy1978 » Tue May 25, 2010 3:37 pm

In the sense that most births that are very dangerous for the mother in modern day also tend to be unsuccessful births (child is dead or with some other extreme condition), then I agree. I guess that would fit and is a good pt as well.
ExeterAcademy1978
 
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:51 pm

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby odelltrclan » Tue May 25, 2010 4:26 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I agree with you that a rape and incest exception makes the whole pro-life argument logically incoherent. However, most of the bible thumpers that I know believe in making exceptions to save the life of the mother but not for rape and incest and I think that's a logically coherent position.


I am not quite sure where you are going with that quote as it seems a tad bit derogatory, but, being a "bible thumper" (meaning I believe in God and am pro-life) and having a very large association of people who do, most of us that I am aware of do feel that in the cases of rape and incest that abortion is an acceptable alternative at the choice of the mother.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue May 25, 2010 7:07 pm

odelltrclan wrote:I am not quite sure where you are going with that quote as it seems a tad bit derogatory, but, being a "bible thumper" (meaning I believe in God and am pro-life) and having a very large association of people who do, most of us that I am aware of do feel that in the cases of rape and incest that abortion is an acceptable alternative at the choice of the mother.

Do you believe that an unborn fetus that is the product of a rape or incest is less precious and valuable than an unborn fetus that is not the product of a rape or incest? By the way, the term "bible thumper", the way I use it, refers to a person who wears their Christianity on their sleeves, and often has a tendency to make references to Jesus, God or the Bible during discussions of contemporary politics. Tim Tebow is someone who I would refer to as a bible thumper.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby lonewolf » Tue May 25, 2010 7:31 pm

Contemporary society defines and attributes sundry policies as conservative or liberal. It is a continuously evolving process and some planks may eventually appear on the opposite platform. People's personal convictions cause them to agree with policies on both sides of the fray and those convictions can be swayed by admiration of or animosity toward personalities.
Posters on this forum have inevitably outed themselves as "liberal" or "conservative" by their remarks.. doesn't mean either side is 100% right or wrong.. although "radicals" on both sides may think so..
I live in a state that registers overwhelmingly Democrat and votes overwhelmingly Republican...even our occasional Democratic Representives or Senators tend to vote Republican because the people they represent, who may be registered Democrats out of political reality/necessity in their county, tell them they favor the majority of the policies of the other party...I am sure this is true in other places and goes both ways.. so much for labels..
I suppose I am a "Christian agnostic with doubts" who contemporary society labels conservative because I seem to disagree with most of the policies advocated by those whom contemporary society labels liberal..
I don't want to define conception or draw up a check list of circumstances making abortion permissable.. or not. IMO, abortion is not a religious or political issue. It is a personal decision that only the affected person, influenced by internal conviction and circumstances, can make so I will just butt out.
A non-politically exclusive issue about which I am not reticent to speak is amnesty/illegal aliens. Administrations of both parties have been criminally negligent in enforcing immigration laws, some to curry votes, some to smooze supporters with an agenda, some from bleeding heart coviction.. all wrong.. No nation is obligated or able to absorb the overflow from the world at the expense of its legal inhabitants and I am not aware of any other nation that is so remiss in enforcing its immigration laws.

I yield the soapbox.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby odelltrclan » Tue May 25, 2010 8:44 pm

Well Jazz, maybe I am a "Bible Thumper" because I seem to be one that fits your description. While life is sacred to me, I can see how some people may view children born out of incest or rape is still dangerous to the life of the mother, if not physically, certainly emotionally. Therefore, a certain level of compassion must be given when dealing with that. If a mother can deal with the emotional consequences and give birth and either raise the child or put it up for adoption then I can see that may be a preferable course of action.

Lonewolf, I am a resident of Arizona and am very angry with the media's self righteous depiction of Arizonans as racist. I find it hypocritical that we are labeled as racists by bigots. I mean, the law as written is clear that "racial profiling" is not allowed. Yet, the "it could lead to" crowd has already passed judgement. One can only wonder why people are opposed to Arizona taking matters into their own hands when a federal government refuses to deal with the issue (a law they will not enforce). Why do they not want to deal with it? Political gains. My belief is it is all a vote grab issue and nothing more. They are using the media to paint us as racists and this BS racism / class warfare is dividing this country more and more.
odelltrclan
 
Posts: 1554
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:01 pm

odelltrclan wrote:While life is sacred to me, I can see how some people may view children born out of incest or rape is still dangerous to the life of the mother, if not physically, certainly emotionally. Therefore, a certain level of compassion must be given when dealing with that. If a mother can deal with the emotional consequences and give birth and either raise the child or put it up for adoption then I can see that may be a preferable course of action.

Odel, you never answered the question, so let me repeat it: Do you believe that an unborn fetus that is the product of rape or incest is less precious and valuable than an unborn fetus that is not the product of rape or incest? The reason that I'm belaboring this point is because it is my understanding that folks such as yourself equate abortion with murder. So if you believe that all unborn fetuses are not equal, then I understand your logic perfectly. If on the other hand, you believe that all unborn fetuses are equally valuable and precious, I don't understand why a Christian like you wouldn't feel morally obligated to give them all equal protection under the criminal justice system.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby Marlow » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:31 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:I don't understand why a Christian like you wouldn't feel morally obligated to give them all equal protection under the criminal justice system.


Abortion debates are ALWAYS doomed to failure, because the passions are so overt. While I am dead set against abortions, that only relates to MY body, and since I can't get pregnant, I have no vote. Jazz, for you to tell a woman she canNOT abort is tantamount to a woman stranger telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. I realize you cannot agree with that, but that's my point; there is little agreement between the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice camps. The only thing I know is that I am 100% against anyone else deciding what MY morality should be.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby gh » Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:43 pm

hasn't SOuth Carolina won the title? The state Jon Stewart now calls "America's whoopee cushion."
gh
 
Posts: 46307
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:55 pm

Marlow wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I don't understand why a Christian like you wouldn't feel morally obligated to give them all equal protection under the criminal justice system.


Abortion debates are ALWAYS doomed to failure, because the passions are so overt. While I am dead set against abortions, that only relates to MY body, and since I can't get pregnant, I have no vote. Jazz, for you to tell a woman she canNOT abort is tantamount to a woman stranger telling you what you can and cannot do with your body. I realize you cannot agree with that, but that's my point; there is little agreement between the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice camps. The only thing I know is that I am 100% against anyone else deciding what MY morality should be.

You completely missed the point that I was trying to make. Go back 8 to 10 posts to see what led up to my post. For the record, I'm pro-choice, but I understand the law-and-order angle of the pro-life folks. Odelltrclan is a self-confessed conservative Christian who seems to be a pro-lifer sometimes and a pro-choicer on other occasions and I was trying to understand the logic of his positions.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10857
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Kentucky: Most Embarrassing

Postby Marlow » Fri Jul 02, 2010 7:43 pm

jazzcyclist wrote: For the record, I'm pro-choice.

:oops: My bad.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21079
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest