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 Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Handyman said:
It isnt just Christians ;) And you would be surprised how heated even the passive faithful can get when you bring up certain subjects and they begin to get frustrated. (most of my friends arent hardcore at any religion, but when it comes to something they believe in the arguments devolve into screaming matches quicker than even political talks :eek: )
Click to expand...

I'd say I tend to see the opposite, though it's really quite people specific. The Christians I know, with some exceptions, are pretty laid back and careful about what they say and when and are pretty sensitive to non-believers around them. But one noisy one draws more attention than ten mellow ones of course. Or maybe you just know the wrong Christians and I need to introduce you to the right ones! ;)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

As I said before...it is not just Christians. I don't know if you know this Bob, but there are other religions out there :p
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

leswp1 said:
I think this is a good point. I do agree that if someone tells me the way I should think based on their belief system it is obnoxious. If they try to explain why their beliefs make them feel the way they do that is different. I might not agree but hopefully I will understand.

Really off topic~[However I set them aside when it comes to arguing for or against enforcing and/or implementing law. I hope you understand I'm not trying to be smarmy here, but what it boils down to for me is that I don't need God to tell me I shouldn't rob or assault someone.](another post I forgot to quote) This struck me as odd. Why is bad to leave God in? If your belief system is based upon your faith system how do you leave your God out of your equation? If you have a faith that is a part of how you formed your morals and ethics. How or why would you want to extract that from your decision making process?
Click to expand...

This whole line of discussion is interesting, but vaguely familiar....

**lightbulb**

Ah, yes...I believe that we are on our way toward rewriting Locke's Letter Concerning Toleration.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bob Gray said:
But my point is, regardless of whether you are a Christian or Buddhist or non-religious, or whatever, your beliefs, morals, etc. somehow have to derive from somewhere and be anchored in something, or else you'd just float around, not really believing in anything in particular (which I guess happens at times with people, but not most people). You can't realistically create this artificial divide between the religious beliefs of someone, and what they believe and their morals overall. I don't know what you believe or your history, but for me, I can't imagine approaching any issue of importance without giving profound consideration to what the Bible says, and what I believe God leads me to think/do about something (for me, coming from a Christian perspective, obviously not for someone who is not a Christian). But maybe your experience is different, so you really can't relate to my experience? You'd have to inform me on that, but I can only speak from how it works for me.

If you want to understand someone, a powerful part of it is to understand what motivates them and what has brought them to the views/beliefs/morals they have. But, if people just want to rant at each other, as is often the case in this country now, nothing of the sort is of interest.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with anything you're saying Bob and respect this view. However, as I noted with one example I'd be more inclined to listen to an anti-abortion angle that targeted what it's like for the fetus rather than hearing that God tells us its murder.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Slap Shot said:
I have no problem with anything you're saying Bob and respect this view. However, as I noted with one example I'd be more inclined to listen to an anti-abortion angle that targeted what it's like for the fetus rather than hearing that God tells us its murder.
Click to expand...

And I fully respect your freedom to choose what arguments you buy into or not.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Slap Shot said:
I have no problem with anything you're saying Bob and respect this view. However, as I noted with one example I'd be more inclined to listen to an anti-abortion angle that targeted what it's like for the fetus rather than hearing that God tells us its murder.
Click to expand...
Secular version of the religious belief would be this: "I believe life begins at conception. Therefore, any artificial termination of a pregnancy is the same thing as murder and must be illegal."

At the other extreme, the hardcore pro choice types would say nothing short of birth is human life and all abortions - even partial birth ones - should be legal without restriction.

Rather than asking the electorate whether or not they think abortion should be legal at all, a better question would be to ask after what stage of gestation should it be illegal. I doubt many people would want to allow 3rd trimester abortions; I also doubt that most would want to ban them in the first few weeks of pregnancy when the fetus is indistinguishable from any other growing mass of cells.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bakunin said:
At the other extreme, the hardcore pro choice types would say nothing short of birth is human life and all abortions - even partial birth ones - should be legal without restriction.
Click to expand...

Sen. Barbara Boxer even goes beyond that extreme. She says the baby does not count as being alive until it leaves the hospital.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Sen. Barbara Boxer even goes beyond that extreme. She says the baby does not count as being alive until it leaves the hospital.
Click to expand...

I once read an article in an ethics class which couldn't rule out infanticide.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Patman said:
I once read an article in an ethics class which couldn't rule out infanticide.
Click to expand...

Of course, on the other side of the slippery slope, masturbation is genocide.

As would be failing to impregnate yourself at every opportunity.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

theprofromdover said:
Proof?
Click to expand...

Cited here.

She supports “partial birth” abortion—the baby, delivered feet first, is pulled out as far as the neck, then is killed. And when asked during a Senate debate whether the baby has a right to life if it slips entirely out of the birth canal before being killed, she replied that the baby acquires that right when it leaves the hospital: “When you bring your baby home.”
Click to expand...

I'd imagine the transcript of that Senate debate exists somewhere.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Cited here.



I'd imagine the transcript of that Senate debate exists somewhere.
Click to expand...

" I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born - - and there is no such thing as partial-birth - - the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights."


Somewhat out of context as she later states "You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? That baby is a human being" The entire response is a rambling attempt to avoid answering when she considers life to begin. She clearly does not want to fall into Santorum's trap but doesn't seem to have the debating skills to do so. But......she did say it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

busterman62 said:
" I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born - - and there is no such thing as partial-birth - - the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights."


Somewhat out of context as she later states "You mean the baby has been birthed and is now in its mother's arms? That baby is a human being" The entire response is a rambling attempt to avoid answering when she considers life to begin. She clearly does not want to fall into Santorum's trap but doesn't seem to have the debating skills to do so. But......she did say it.
Click to expand...

Hmm, yeah, a little better than Will makes it sound I think. That's a fantastic demonstration of how not to answer a question though.
 
Bakunin said:
Rather than asking the electorate whether or not they think abortion should be legal at all, a better question would be to ask after what stage of gestation should it be illegal. I doubt many people would want to allow 3rd trimester abortions; I also doubt that most would want to ban them in the first few weeks of pregnancy when the fetus is indistinguishable from any other growing mass of cells.
Click to expand...

This is precisely the line of thinking that I think most advances the discussion and doesn't get bogged down with, "God told me so".
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

This would appear to be the appropriate thread for this comment:

Getting worked up about today's Prop. 8 decision, one way or another, is silly as far as I'm concerned. The decision will get appealed to the 9th Circuit, who will affirm the decision (I'm sadly deficient in federal civil procedure and don't know whether they have the option not to hear the appeal, but even if they do I would imagine that they will take the case just so they can affirm it), and then it will get appealed to the Supreme Court, and they will presumably hear it as well. This isn't over until the Supreme Court rules or denies cert, and making a fuss about it until then is premature.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

jmh said:
This would appear to be the appropriate thread for this comment:

Getting worked up about today's Prop. 8 decision, one way or another, is silly as far as I'm concerned. The decision will get appealed to the 9th Circuit, who will affirm the decision (I'm sadly deficient in federal civil procedure and don't know whether they have the option not to hear the appeal, but even if they do I would imagine that they will take the case just so they can affirm it), and then it will get appealed to the Supreme Court, and they will presumably hear it as well. This isn't over until the Supreme Court rules or denies cert, and making a fuss about it until then is premature.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The 9th Circuit will love this ruling (if only Arizona could shake free of the 9th Circuit somehow!). The only messy detail is whether they start allowing gay marriages at this point or hold off on that until the Supreme Court rules.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Bob Gray said:
Agreed. The 9th Circuit will love this ruling (if only Arizona could shake free of the 9th Circuit somehow!). The only messy detail is whether they start allowing gay marriages at this point or hold off on that until the Supreme Court rules.
Click to expand...

I am guessing they will...

As a supporter of Gay Marriage...all I can say is HOORAY! :D

If only the government hadnt spent the last 200 years recognizing marriage under the law this wouldnt be an issue, but they did so civil rights for all! Now everyone can be miserable and not have sex with their legal spouse! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top