What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
Not really, calling all conservatives "Taliban" and equating the beheading of infidels in the middle east with preserving children's lives in the womb has been unoriginal for a few years now.
Click to expand...

This arrow goes awry. Anti-abortion isn't by nature a fundy position, it's actually quite the opposite -- a fairly modern extension of practical religious considerations to the advance of medical knowledge. It only gets tossed around by the fundies because it's a useful political ploy. Fundyism is the burrowing (always selectively) into a text to thwart thinking, while social engineering like the anti-abortion movement is the epitome of "real life" praxis. And anyway, it's primarily the province of Catholicism, which is again directly opposed to fundamentalism and highly welcoming of seriously thinking through both doctrine and worldly affairs.

The enemy of reason isn't religion, it's the mindless (and always self-serving, and quite often -- at the top rungs -- cynical) dogmatism of the fundamentalist.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
There's a fine line to walk between "shaming" a person because of unacceptable social behavior (seriously, don't we want people to be ashamed of themselves if they lie, cheat, steal, or deliberately try to harm someone?) and "shaming" a person because of innate or acquired attributes.
Click to expand...
I don't know, maybe the difference is between whether the shame comes from within or without. It's the externally applied shame (from a parent or teacher) that is damaging. Bottom line is that showing love is always good, and diminishing a kid's worth is always bad, and whatever you model is what matters. These are things every parent has to learn within some period of time that we all find out we suck at parenting.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Kepler said:
This arrow goes awry. Anti-abortion isn't by nature a fundy position, it's actually quite the opposite -- a fairly modern extension of practical religious considerations to the advance of medical knowledge. It only gets tossed around by the fundies because it's a useful political ploy. Fundyism is the burrowing (always selectively) into a text to thwart thinking, while social engineering like the anti-abortion movement is the epitome of "real life" praxis. And anyway, it's primarily the province of Catholicism, which is again directly opposed to fundamentalism and highly welcoming of seriously thinking through both doctrine and worldly affairs.

The enemy of reason isn't religion, it's the mindless (and always self-serving, and quite often -- at the top rungs -- cynical) dogmatism of the fundamentalist.
Click to expand...

I apologize, because while I agree completely, I never would have given you credit for realizing it.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
you can remove that child and put it up for adoption
Click to expand...

Trouble is that the Adrian Petersons and Margaret Sangers have a common agenda: "This kid is MY PROPERTY, you can't tell me what to do with it."
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
Ironically, late-term abortions are a major civil rights issue these days, using "equal protection under the law" as their banner (see the Gosnell murder verdicts for example).
-- if a baby is born and then smothered, that is murder
-- how is killing a baby one day before it is born any different? just because of a minor accident in timing?
-- killing any baby that would be viable on its own outside the womb, how is that any different? Obviously the Gosnell jury saw that as murder given their verdict.

I'm waiting for LDS / Catholic charities / etc. to petition a court as guardian ad litem on behalf of unborn children, who otherwise have no voice, to stop this practice. You don't have to force the woman to carry the unborn child to full term, you can remove that child and put it up for adoption and these agencies will raise it and care for it just like they would a one-day old baby.
Click to expand...


Because its not your decision to make, and nobody appointed you, LDS, Catholic charities, or anybody else as God. Late term abortions like you describe are already illegal unless there's some serious medical reason for having one, like the mother's life is in danger or something is wrong with the fetus. Why you would want to involve outside parties or the govt in a decision like that is beyond me.

That's always the crux of where conservatives go off the rails on this issue.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

FreshFish said:
Ironically, late-term abortions are a major civil rights issue these days, using "equal protection under the law" as their banner (see the Gosnell murder verdicts for example).
-- if a baby is born and then smothered, that is murder
-- how is killing a baby one day before it is born any different? just because of a minor accident in timing?
-- killing any baby that would be viable on its own outside the womb, how is that any different? Obviously the Gosnell jury saw that as murder given their verdict.

I'm waiting for LDS / Catholic charities / etc. to petition a court as guardian ad litem on behalf of unborn children, who otherwise have no voice, to stop this practice. You don't have to force the woman to carry the unborn child to full term, you can remove that child and put it up for adoption and these agencies will raise it and care for it just like they would a one-day old baby.
Click to expand...

Oh, please. If you're going to frame an issue like that then please do it correctly.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
Why you would want to involve outside parties or the govt in a decision like that is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It's the conservative position because safeguarding life should be the one essential role of government. If they can't do this one thing let's just shut it down and go our own ways. It's not like making sure everyone gets a free Obamaphone. It matters.
OK, sorry, I know we've been over this already.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
It's the conservative position because safeguarding life should be the one essential role of government. If they can't do this one thing let's just shut it down and go our own ways. It's not like making sure everyone gets a free Obamaphone. It matters.
OK, sorry, I know we've been over this already.
Click to expand...


But I also thought keeping govt out of people's lives as much as possible was the end-all-be-all of conservatism? Is there anything more obtrusive than having total strangers enforce through govt policy their belief you should have a child no matter what the physical consequences for you and the child?

No offense, but I'm not entirely convinced that Fishy can hold down a paying job. I'm supposed to believe though that he's qualified to make the most personal decisions for people he's never met? No. Thanks.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
But I also thought keeping govt out of people's lives as much as possible was the end-all-be-all of conservatism? Is there anything more obtrusive than having total strangers enforce through govt policy their belief you should have a child no matter what the physical consequences for you and the child?
Click to expand...

If the mother incorporates then* the GOP will defend her sacred right to be protected from gubmint interference. You can get a 90% gloss on every Republican position by just crossing out "human rights" and substituting "wealth rights."

(* if she's white and Christian)
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

Rover said:
Is there anything more obtrusive than having total strangers enforce through govt policy their belief you should have a child no matter what the physical consequences for you and the child?
Click to expand...

Whose rights are most affected, the inconvenienced parent or the child who's life is at stake? Is there anything more obtrusive than having someone decide for you that your life isn't worth living? Right to life is all about being free of others making decisions for you. If you are the one being killed. The mistake in the conventional wisdom is assuming the only life affected by abortion is the mother's.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
Whose rights are most affected, the inconvenienced parent or the child who's life is at stake? Is there anything more obtrusive than having someone decide for you that your life isn't worth living? Right to life is all about being free of others making decisions for you. If you are the one being killed. The mistake in the conventional wisdom is assuming the only life affected by abortion is the mother's.
Click to expand...

Or the "mistake" in the anti-abortion camp is extending the definition of life back to conception (or, if you take the Church's anti-contraception position, even further back to ejaculation; somebody out there probably extends it even further back and believes abstinence is murder).

Roe is a lousy legal decision in so many ways (for one thing, they picked the wrong clause to hang it on), but the trimester definition is as good as we've got. The pro-choice argument is not anti-life, it just defines life differently than the anti-abortion argument. That line can also be moved out prior to your definition, making you a stone cold killer, so be careful with that logic.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

geezer said:
Whose rights are most affected, the inconvenienced parent or the child who's life is at stake? Is there anything more obtrusive than having someone decide for you that your life isn't worth living? Right to life is all about being free of others making decisions for you. If you are the one being killed. The mistake in the conventional wisdom is assuming the only life affected by abortion is the mother's.
Click to expand...


Where is your arrogance coming from that YOU know that this decision is merely about an inconvenienced parent, so these people need conservatives to ride in on their white horse to save them? Again, this is for people who are total strangers to you, yet you presume to know the details of the decision facing them. And people tell me I'm a know it all... :rolleyes:

Lose the God complex. Its not your decision to make for them. It never will be.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This is usually about where Priceless or Foxton comes in with a witty line about sacred sperm. Better if we just drop it now before things get out of hand.

It's a unique issue, because a person who says that we are not morally permitted to decide one life has less value than another is the one accused of "playing God." And that's the commonly accepted understanding.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

This thread took the off ramp to nowhere about 3 pages ago.

So - if Scotland goes Yes tonight, does it destabilize Europe?
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
This thread took the off ramp to nowhere about 3 pages ago.

So - if Scotland goes Yes tonight, does it destabilize Europe?
Click to expand...

No.

Now we're back on point. :)

I read that Scotland would like to form closer ties with the Faroes, Iceland and Denmark to form a sort of Crappy Climate Coalition. Evidently the thinking is the Scots were never really "British" at all, but some sort of strange Dane except unattractive.
 
Re: The Global War on Terror 5.0: Putin on the Risk

joecct said:
This thread took the off ramp to nowhere about 3 pages ago.

So - if Scotland goes Yes tonight, does it destabilize Europe?
Click to expand...

Well it will certainly destabilize Great Britain. I'm worried about the possibility of it capsizing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top