Re: USA Election 2008 (Dangerous territory)
Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2008 12:46 am
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]Like I said, I want the laws I am forced to follow to be based upon logic and philosophical reasoning, not upon religious beliefs. If you can give me objective reasoning why a law should be passed, then I will listen to you. But if you say that your religious beliefs tell you that something should be legal or illegal, then I stop listening.
I'm not religious, and I don't think my actions should necessarily be dictated by religious ideals that I don't subscribe to. That's just a back-handed way to try to push your religion on me. I respect your right to believe what you do, but give me some objective reason why this law should be passed for the benefit of society or I don't recognize your right to push your ideals onto my life, or onto anybody else's life. [/quote]
I’m an engineer and scientist by profession. I also read the bible and can tell you first hand that it is full of logic and philosophical reasoning. "If you hear a man rail at the Bible, you can usually conclude that he never reads it." - Charles Spurgeon.
Please read my previous posts completely before replying, you will see that the laws you have lived by your entire life were created by Christians. The very basis of the most powerful nation on Earth, was created by Christians. There are a lot of counties that have laws without morals and guess what, you see many of their former citizens over here. Refusing to accept historical fact is an option, but that does not make it true.
Is it just a coincidence that when we start deviating from these laws that we see more and more problems in society? You can draw many parallels with the fall of Rome with what is currently going on in America (illegal immigration, playing police officer with the world, homosexuality as an accepted way of life, over spending, infanticide (i.e. abortion), etc. etc.). Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]Homosexuals are people, too, and as I said before, they don't choose to be homosexual.
….
If you remove yourself, your religious beliefs, and your heterosexual biases from the argument, I think you may find that there really is no good reason why homosexuals don't deserve the same rights and recognition as anybody else. [/quote]
Homosexuality is not a race and should not be treated as one with special laws for one type of deviant behavior so no one is offended. I say deviant because it is not the norm, not in humans or in animals. Homosexuality is a choice, just like heterosexuality or abstinence.
I’m going to have to ask you to take your own advice and remove your own beliefs and biases because you obviously did not read my entire post. I never said homosexuals are not human and homosexuality is not natural. The very fact that animals turn to homosexual behavior in the absence of a female leads me to believe this. What I said was do not turn the family institution into an unnatural thing. Love is one thing, but making a baby is impossible between two males or two females, hence having a baby in this environment is unnatural. Using the same reasoning that homosexual behavior is natural in animals, I’ll use it to prove my point, you do not see homosexual animals raising offspring.
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]I think the life of somebody who is actually living and who has an established life is more important than the life of a little sea monkey living inside a person's womb. [/quote]
That is still rationalization to justify a horrible practice except now you are providing opinion rather than fact. Why is the mother’s life more important? There is no fact that proves that statement. It is my opinion that people selfish enough to kill unborn offspring because their life will change are less important than the baby. I think error on the side of conservatism is a safe bet. Not everyone that grows up in poor / abusive homes prefers death! There were children still being born during the Great Depression, you are a testament to that.
To give you some background where I’m coming from, I feel the life of my kids is more important than mine and would never hesitate to give mine up if the unfortunate opportunity presented itself. Here is a hypothetical question, what if Albert Einstein, the father of Physics was aborted? His family was poor. You can replace Albert Einstein with anyone of your role models that grew up in a less fortunate family.
Wealth is not a measure of how much money you have. A child is the greatest treasure you can possibly imagine. Until you have some of your own, you cannot possibly understand this. Just like I cannot possibly understand what it is like to have a baby inside me but I do understand what it is like to lose one. Do you?
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]As for Ron Paul, like I said before, his ideas are nice but there's no way that he would be able to get support for any of them with the Congress if he were to be elected. We have to think realistically.[/quote]
I’ll agree to disagree here. A good leader pi$$es people off. “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
[quote=""I__CHAOS__I""]my opinion about abortion (and similar moral items like euthanasia) is that you cannot have a single law to cover it all. There are just too many different situations, I would even say that each case is different and should be treated accordingly. What if the mother is in high danger of losing her life? What if they know that the unborn kind will die shortly after birth while living in pain? This is not a black/white item, and whatever law is used, it should reflect that.[/quote]
I agree this is grey when the mother can die, there are exceptions to most rules but there are such things as cesarean operations. The percentage of woman dieing in American hospitals during child birth is extremely low. Are we to make laws catering to every situation or just outlaw infanticide? But as far as pain goes after birth, what if the abortion itself involves horrible excruciating pain? I mean think about it, your limbs are being ripped from your body. Ohh, I forgot, fish do not have any feelings.
I'm not religious, and I don't think my actions should necessarily be dictated by religious ideals that I don't subscribe to. That's just a back-handed way to try to push your religion on me. I respect your right to believe what you do, but give me some objective reason why this law should be passed for the benefit of society or I don't recognize your right to push your ideals onto my life, or onto anybody else's life. [/quote]
I’m an engineer and scientist by profession. I also read the bible and can tell you first hand that it is full of logic and philosophical reasoning. "If you hear a man rail at the Bible, you can usually conclude that he never reads it." - Charles Spurgeon.
Please read my previous posts completely before replying, you will see that the laws you have lived by your entire life were created by Christians. The very basis of the most powerful nation on Earth, was created by Christians. There are a lot of counties that have laws without morals and guess what, you see many of their former citizens over here. Refusing to accept historical fact is an option, but that does not make it true.
Is it just a coincidence that when we start deviating from these laws that we see more and more problems in society? You can draw many parallels with the fall of Rome with what is currently going on in America (illegal immigration, playing police officer with the world, homosexuality as an accepted way of life, over spending, infanticide (i.e. abortion), etc. etc.). Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]Homosexuals are people, too, and as I said before, they don't choose to be homosexual.
….
If you remove yourself, your religious beliefs, and your heterosexual biases from the argument, I think you may find that there really is no good reason why homosexuals don't deserve the same rights and recognition as anybody else. [/quote]
Homosexuality is not a race and should not be treated as one with special laws for one type of deviant behavior so no one is offended. I say deviant because it is not the norm, not in humans or in animals. Homosexuality is a choice, just like heterosexuality or abstinence.
I’m going to have to ask you to take your own advice and remove your own beliefs and biases because you obviously did not read my entire post. I never said homosexuals are not human and homosexuality is not natural. The very fact that animals turn to homosexual behavior in the absence of a female leads me to believe this. What I said was do not turn the family institution into an unnatural thing. Love is one thing, but making a baby is impossible between two males or two females, hence having a baby in this environment is unnatural. Using the same reasoning that homosexual behavior is natural in animals, I’ll use it to prove my point, you do not see homosexual animals raising offspring.
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]I think the life of somebody who is actually living and who has an established life is more important than the life of a little sea monkey living inside a person's womb. [/quote]
That is still rationalization to justify a horrible practice except now you are providing opinion rather than fact. Why is the mother’s life more important? There is no fact that proves that statement. It is my opinion that people selfish enough to kill unborn offspring because their life will change are less important than the baby. I think error on the side of conservatism is a safe bet. Not everyone that grows up in poor / abusive homes prefers death! There were children still being born during the Great Depression, you are a testament to that.
To give you some background where I’m coming from, I feel the life of my kids is more important than mine and would never hesitate to give mine up if the unfortunate opportunity presented itself. Here is a hypothetical question, what if Albert Einstein, the father of Physics was aborted? His family was poor. You can replace Albert Einstein with anyone of your role models that grew up in a less fortunate family.
Wealth is not a measure of how much money you have. A child is the greatest treasure you can possibly imagine. Until you have some of your own, you cannot possibly understand this. Just like I cannot possibly understand what it is like to have a baby inside me but I do understand what it is like to lose one. Do you?
[quote=""KingKaramazov""]As for Ron Paul, like I said before, his ideas are nice but there's no way that he would be able to get support for any of them with the Congress if he were to be elected. We have to think realistically.[/quote]
I’ll agree to disagree here. A good leader pi$$es people off. “A genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus.” - Martin Luther King Jr.
[quote=""I__CHAOS__I""]my opinion about abortion (and similar moral items like euthanasia) is that you cannot have a single law to cover it all. There are just too many different situations, I would even say that each case is different and should be treated accordingly. What if the mother is in high danger of losing her life? What if they know that the unborn kind will die shortly after birth while living in pain? This is not a black/white item, and whatever law is used, it should reflect that.[/quote]
I agree this is grey when the mother can die, there are exceptions to most rules but there are such things as cesarean operations. The percentage of woman dieing in American hospitals during child birth is extremely low. Are we to make laws catering to every situation or just outlaw infanticide? But as far as pain goes after birth, what if the abortion itself involves horrible excruciating pain? I mean think about it, your limbs are being ripped from your body. Ohh, I forgot, fish do not have any feelings.