Conservatism Has Lost Touch With Reality

[Debra Little]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1310143512' post='2264499']
what about when the holy spirit speaks thru the pope when the pope declares ex cathedra and that is infalliable?

debra, can you please lay out your position because i honestly do not understand where you stand. your tag says you don't rep the pope but you say catholic under religion. i am confused. do you agree with and follow church teaching 100% or not? you keep saying things like God's law seperate from church law and such. so what's your stance on the catholic church?
[/quote]

the pope is a human being and no more infallible than anyone else. only God is infallible!

[MIKolbe]

wrong....

[Debra Little]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1310143512' post='2264499']
what about when the holy spirit speaks thru the pope when the pope declares ex cathedra and that is infalliable?

debra, can you please lay out your position because i honestly do not understand where you stand. your tag says you don't rep the pope but you say catholic under religion. i am confused. do you agree with and follow church teaching 100% or not? you keep saying things like God's law seperate from church law and such. so what's your stance on the catholic church?
[/quote]

i follow the teaching of the church yes. doesn't mean i have to agree with it.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1310139280' post='2264458']
God's Word overrides the other two. Only His Word is inspired.
[/quote]
It doesn't work that way and you are misunderstanding a basic tenet of Christianity.

The ONLY reason you have the New Testament is that the Magisterium (teaching office) of the Catholic Church says it the Word of God. The Church existed BEFORE the New Testament did.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Debra Little' timestamp='1309964442' post='2263614']
Yes I view right wing as negative and very destructive to our country. It is the church that
is responsible for all the hatred and animosity towards LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual
and Transgered-Transexual) people.

It is the church that says to the world it's okay to hate anyone who is different from
yourself. To exclude them from your fellowships, to make them not feel wanted.
It is the church that tells society that their hatred and violence toward us is not
a sin because it's done in the name of God.
[/quote]
nvm

Edited July 8, 2011 by Winchester

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310149871' post='2264550']
Can you give one actual example of a politician who criminalized miscarriages, or even proposed to do so?

Yet another ridiculous hysterical bogeyman created by the pro-abortion Left.
[/quote]

How about the Georgia State Rep Bobby Franklin proposing bill HB-1, which exposes women who miscarry to the DEATH PENALTY, if they cannot prove that there was no human involvement in the miscarriage. which would basically be impossible to 100% prove.

the relevant portion of the law (spoilered for people who dont like reading doc dumps)
[spoiler]'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder. Such term does not include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' [b]so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event[/b]. © The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances.

(d) [b]Any person committing prenatal murder in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1[/b]. [/spoiler]




and the code that explicitly opens this to the death penalty
[spoiler]TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 5. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

ARTICLE 1. HOMICIDE

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1 (2006)

§ 16-5-1. Murder; felony murder


(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

© A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

[b](d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life.[/b]

[/spoiler]

And what just happened...
[spoiler]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/owz6z.png[/img]

this was really fun to make
[/spoiler]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310149871' post='2264550']
Can you give one actual example of a politician who criminalized miscarriages, or even proposed to do so?

Yet another ridiculous hysterical bogeyman created by the pro-abortion Left.
[/quote]


I also found (with some quick googling, the website is free) that the same sort of law has already passed in Utah, sponsored by Republican Rep Carl Wimmer, criminalizing miscarriages.

the article(written a week before the bill passed)
[url="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/utah-abortion-bill-punishing-miscarriages-preventing-crime/story?id=9955517"]http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=9955517[/url]


the law
[url="http://le.utah.gov/%7E2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm"]http://le.utah.gov/~...lhtm/HB0012.htm[/url]

What just happened(again)
[spoiler]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/g50th.png[/img]
[/spoiler]

Edited July 9, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310150721' post='2264556']
My point is that "rights" should be the same in every state. Wasn't that the point of the Antebellum Amendments? To make sure that there weren't any more "slave states" and "free states?"
[/quote]
I think you and I have fundamental differences regarding what are and are not inalienable human rights. I don't believe there's any fundamental right to having sodomitic same-sex relationships granted marriage licenses by the state, but I'm aware, obviously, that you disagree.

[quote]None of what you just said disagrees with my post. I think you just have a pathological inability to say "Kujo, I agree with you." It's probably because I'm a doosh.

In any case, sure. I endorse all of what you just said.
[/quote]
Thanks for your endorsement. And that's "douche."

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310150822' post='2264559']
Says the foremost creator and perpetrator of ridiculous, hysterical bogeyman from the Catholic right!
[/quote]
Says the most ridiculous, hysterical bogeyman of them all.

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1310151510' post='2264568']
Soc,

Would you agree or disagree with the following sentence:
[/quote]
Disagree.

Maintaining high government spending or increasing it will not improve the economy in the long run. The government does not create wealth, but spends other people's wealth. If the federal government spends more as the "customer" of those businesses, the money it is spending must come from somewhere else - either from taxpayers now, or it goes into debt and must be repaid by children in the future. With the U.S. currently 14 trillion or so in debt, going deeper into debt to "stimulate the economy" is a foolish notion. Already, the U.S. government has been threatened with lower credit ratings which mean other governments will become increasingly unwilling to lend it more. The Obama administration's fiscal policies are again to someone being deep in credit card debt, then getting another card to pay off that debt - maybe looks nice in the short run, but in the long run utterly disastrous.

If you really think the government creates wealth in that way - by giving people money it does not have - then the government should just write every man, woman, and child in America a big fat check for a million bucks each. That should really help the economy, right?

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310227767' post='2264956']
I think you and I have fundamental differences regarding what are and are not inalienable human rights. I don't believe there's any fundamental right to having sodomitic same-sex relationships granted marriage licenses by the state, but I'm aware, obviously, that you disagree.[/quote]

Touche.


[quote]Thanks for your endorsement. And that's "douche."[/quote]

I'm well-aware of how to spell douche. I just didn't know if it was one of the no-no words around here.


[quote]Says the most ridiculous, hysterical bogeyman of them all.[/quote]

I'm honored by the bequeathing of such a title by a man such as yourself

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310184929' post='2264834']
How about the Georgia State Rep Bobby Franklin proposing bill HB-1, which exposes women who miscarry to the DEATH PENALTY, if they cannot prove that there was no human involvement in the miscarriage. which would basically be impossible to 100% prove.[/quote]
Again, total nonsense. Let's read the part you "spoilered":

[quote]the relevant portion of the law (spoilered for people who dont like reading doc dumps)
[b]'Prenatal murder' means the intentional removal of a fetus from a woman with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus; provided, however, that if a physician makes a medically justified effort to save the lives of both the mother and the fetus and the fetus does not survive, such action shall not be prenatal murder.[/b] Such term does [b]not [/b]include a naturally occurring expulsion of a fetus known medically as a 'spontaneous abortion' and popularly as a 'miscarriage' so long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event. © The act of prenatal murder is contrary to the health and well-being of the citizens of this state and to the state itself and is illegal in this state in all instances.

[b]Any person committing prenatal murder in this state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d) of Code Section 16-5-1[/b].[/quote]
The part you had bolded simply defines what a miscarriage means, and says specifically that miscarriages or spontaneous abortions are [b]not[/b] criminalized by this law, contrary to your slanderous assertions. It said nothing about women being presumed guilty of deliberate abortion unless proven innocent.

As with any other murder, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the abortion [b]was[/b] intentional, and did not have an intent to save the life of the mother and fetus. As in prosecuting any other crime, the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Either you have extremely severe basic reading comprehension or logic problems, or you are deliberately twisting the facts to score ideological points.
But thanks for quoting the law to prove how silly and misleading your statements really are.

This law is really no different than those in the states where abortion was illegal prior to Roe v. Wade, and in that time there was hardly a problem of women being put to death for accidental miscarriages.


[quote]and the code that explicitly opens this to the death penalty
TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 5. CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON

ARTICLE 1. HOMICIDE

O.C.G.A. § 16-5-1 (2006)

§ 16-5-1. Murder; felony murder


(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with [b]malice aforethought, either express or implied[/b], causes the death of another human being.

(b)[b] Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.[/b]

© A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life.[/quote]

Again, [b]malice aforethought[/b] and[b] deliberate intention[/b] to take a life must be proven for a person to be charged with murder.

Again, the burden of proof would be on the accusers, and it would be very hard to prove malice aforethought beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of a miscarriage.

The charge of wanting women hauled of to the death chamber for miscarriages is thus utterly ridiculous and nonsensical.


[quote]And what just happened...[/quote]
. . . was another complete and utter FAIL on the part of J-lol.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1310246264' post='2265065']
Again, total nonsense. Let's read the part you "spoilered":


The part you had bolded simply defines what a miscarriage means, and says specifically that miscarriages or spontaneous abortions are [b]not[/b] criminalized by this law, contrary to your slanderous assertions. It said nothing about women being presumed guilty of deliberate abortion unless proven innocent.

As with any other murder, the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the abortion [b]was[/b] intentional, and did not have an intent to save the life of the mother and fetus. As in prosecuting any other crime, the accused is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Either you have extremely severe basic reading comprehension or logic problems, or you are deliberately twisting the facts to score ideological points.
But thanks for quoting the law to prove how silly and misleading your statements really are.

This law is really no different than those in the states where abortion was illegal prior to Roe v. Wade, and in that time there was hardly a problem of women being put to death for accidental miscarriages.




Again, [b]malice aforethought[/b] and[b] deliberate intention[/b] to take a life must be proven for a person to be charged with murder.

Again, the burden of proof would be on the accusers, and it would be very hard to prove malice aforethought beyond a reasonable doubt in the case of a miscarriage.

The charge of wanting women hauled of to the death chamber for miscarriages is thus utterly ridiculous and nonsensical.



. . . was another complete and utter FAIL on the part of J-lol.
[/quote]

Really Socrates, its nice for you to come out and play for a while. But if you want to go back and stick your head in the sand that would be just ok with me. Took you long enough to reply to one of my posts.

" long as there is no human involvement whatsoever in the causation of such event" can be interpreted a bunch of ways, including a woman getting charged with murder for "accidentally" falling down the stairs, or by unintentionally causing a miscarriage. Not wearing a seatbelt or other "reckless behavior could be cited, as well as drinking wine before the woman knows she is pregnant.

lets just leave out the whole part about women who get an abortion being charged with the death penalty.


As someone who is also prolife, i am always astonished to see how much leeway conservatives are given whenever they say they are prolife. That doesnt stop every other one of their beliefs and intentions from being potentially wrong, and it certainly doesnt prevent them from doing arseholish things in the name of being prolife.

This is just one(two actually) more in a long series of Conservatives proposing "prolife" bills that are either deeply flawed or also include a whole bunch of other crazy junk that makes it severely undesireable.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1310192901' post='2264879']
I also found (with some quick googling, the website is free) that the same sort of law has already passed in Utah, sponsored by Republican Rep Carl Wimmer, criminalizing miscarriages.[/quote]
And with some quick reading, you'll note that the law does not in fact criminalize miscarriages (despite the ABC article's moronically sensationalist heading).

[quote][quote]the article(written a week before the bill passed)
[url="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/utah-abortion-bill-punishing-miscarriages-preventing-crime/story?id=9955517"]http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=9955517[/url] [/quote]


the law
[url="http://le.utah.gov/%7E2010/htmdoc/hbillhtm/HB0012.htm"]http://le.utah.gov/~...lhtm/HB0012.htm[/url]
[/quote]
The proposed (and vetoed) law states[quote]: 1) (a) A person commits criminal homicide if [he] the person intentionally,
49 knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise
50 specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including
51 an unborn child at any stage of its development.
52 (b) There shall be no cause of action for criminal homicide for the death of an unborn
53 child caused by an abortion, as defined in Section 76-7-301 .[/quote]

In other words, a person can be charged with homicide if he knowingly or recklessly performs actions that result in the death of an unborn child. For instance, if someone roughs up or assaults a woman, and causes the death of her child, he can be convicted of homicide. If some fool did such a thing to my pregnant wife and unborn child, I would certainly want him to be held fully legally responsible for the child's death (that is, if I didn't kill the bastard first).

From your article (writing about the governor's evaluation): "[b]He understands that the intent of the bill is not to criminalize miscarriage[/b], nor to restrict a woman's ability to seek a legal abortion. However, he is also aware that concerns exist about possible unintended consequences of the legislation," Welling wrote. "That will be key to his analysis of this legislation, as it is with all other bills with which he is presented."

As your article acknowledges: "Like many other states,[b] Utah's law regarding the death of unborn fetuses punishes the woman's attacker, not the woman herself.[/b]"


[quote]What just happened(again)[/quote]
Another complete FAIL from J-lol (again!)

You failed to provide any evidence of a single woman being convicted of murder for a miscarriage, or of a pro-life law-maker intending to do so.

Either you can't read, or you're dishonest and slanderous. I'll pray it's the former.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Socrates

[Marie-Therese]

Socrates, while some of your specifics might be correct, I think you are missing the point. I don't think J_lol's point was that the law actually criminalized natural miscarriage; obviously no one could pass such a ridiculous law. However, the point is precisely what the article stated:

[quote]However, he is also aware that concerns exist about possible unintended consequences of the legislation [/quote]

This is ultimately the point. Laws which are vague and nebulous in structure can and will ultimately lead to misuse, misapplication and abuse. Give a government an inch and they will take the mile, and your house, and your car, and your firstborn. This law was so intentionally vague as to make it possible for women to have to defend themselves against accusations of doing something to their unborn child...as the governor said, possible unintended consequences. In addition, the law as presently structured could easily be overturned on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, as it presently exists, the law clearly states that a woman has a protected right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. How could a law be made that said a woman could be guilty of murdering her unborn child when she has a legal right to do it? I understand that the argument is about an outside agent, i.e. an attacker, but the law is not written to specify this. Instead, you have a poorly written and vague piece of legislation which could be used for any number of situations, and which seems to be a roundabout way to be able to prosecute women. I have seen recent cases where, for example, a young woman who attempted suicide while pregnant and failed, but whose child did not live, will be charged with murder. Is a murder conviction and a prison sentence really the answer to a situation like this? I would argue no. When it comes to issues of law, it is not about intention, it's about application. Those laws J_lol quoted did NOT stipulate that the person causing the murder of the infant was someone other than the mother...this means that, yes, in fact, a woman could be prosecuted for the death of her unborn child under these statues.


The real story here is the larger argument that seems to indicate that if someone disagrees with something that someone has branded "conservative" then this somehow revokes any other moral positions simply because the popular climate presses absolute political identity. What is sad to see is that people blindly affiliate themselves with political labels and will argue in defense of pretty much anything if it has brand X or brand Y political label attached to it. Republican? You'd rather be shot than vote in favour of something perceived as "liberal." Democrat? Call it conservative and watch them run quickly in the other direction without even contemplating the merits. And if you argue otherwise, you have no real understanding of popular politics.

Are there exceptions? Of course, there are no absolutes. However, in terms of political posturing, those exceptions are about as easily found as a dodo.

Then there is the "well, they are innocent until proven guilty" argument. Let's face it, if you seriously believe that is true then you are profoundly naive. Legally? Perhaps. In truth? Not on your life. All it takes is the accusation of something these days and your life is potentially ruined. Ask any number of falsely accused priests and let them tell you what innocent until proven guilty means to them. It means absolutely nothing.

Other than the issues of bad legislation and political posturing, there is something that seriously concerns me about your post. You pretty much openly insinuated that J_lol was either stupid or malicious in his points. First, let's not even address the egregious lack of charity. Your argument, while somewhat myopic, might be better received if it wasn't peppered with screaming arrogance. Second, asserting that any of these points were posted in malice is pretty ludicrous. Where is the malice? Disagreement? The perfectly legitimate questioning of the potential for misapplication of a law is not malice, it's prudence. Blind defense of a law or political position just because it seems to be affiliated with one perspective or another is a simple and misguided way to approach politics. Just because something seems on its face to be "pro-life" doesn't make it good or worthy of consideration. Government intervention of ANY sort should be regarded with suspicion.

Edited for grammar.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Marie-Therese

[4588686]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1310346020' post='2265512']
Socrates, while some of your specifics might be correct, I think you are missing the point. I don't think J_lol's point was that the law actually criminalized natural miscarriage; obviously no one could pass such a ridiculous law. However, the point is precisely what the article stated:



This is ultimately the point. Laws which are vague and nebulous in structure can and will ultimately lead to misuse, misapplication and abuse. Give a government an inch and they will take the mile, and your house, and your car, and your firstborn. This law was so intentionally vague as to make it possible for women to have to defend themselves against accusations of doing something to their unborn child...as the governor said, possible unintended consequences. In addition, the law as presently structured could easily be overturned on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, as it presently exists, the law clearly states that a woman has a protected right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. How could a law be made that said a woman could be guilty of murdering her unborn child when she has a legal right to do it? I understand that the argument is about an outside agent, i.e. an attacker, but the law is not written to specify this. Instead, you have a poorly written and vague piece of legislation which could be used for any number of situations, and which seems to be a roundabout way to be able to prosecute women. I have seen recent cases where, for example, a young woman who attempted suicide while pregnant and failed, but whose child did not live, will be charged with murder. Is a murder conviction and a prison sentence really the answer to a situation like this? I would argue no. When it comes to issues of law, it is not about intention, it's about application. Those laws J_lol quoted did NOT stipulate that the person causing the murder of the infant was someone other than the mother...this means that, yes, in fact, a woman could be prosecuted for the death of her unborn child under these statues.


The real story here is the larger argument that seems to indicate that if someone disagrees with something that someone has branded "conservative" then this somehow revokes any other moral positions simply because the popular climate presses absolute political identity. What is sad to see is that people blindly affiliate themselves with political labels and will argue in defense of pretty much anything if it has brand X or brand Y political label attached to it. Republican? You'd rather be shot than vote in favour of something perceived as "liberal." Democrat? Call it conservative and watch them run quickly in the other direction without even contemplating the merits. And if you argue otherwise, you have no real understanding of popular politics.

Are there exceptions? Of course, there are no absolutes. However, in terms of political posturing, those exceptions are about as easily found as a dodo.

Then there is the "well, they are innocent until proven guilty" argument. Let's face it, if you seriously believe that is true then you are profoundly naive. Legally? Perhaps. In truth? Not on your life. All it takes is the accusation of something these days and your life is potentially ruined. Ask any number of falsely accused priests and let them tell you what innocent until proven guilty means to them. It means absolutely nothing.

Other than the issues of bad legislation and political posturing, there is something that seriously concerns me about your post. You pretty much openly insinuated that J_lol was either stupid or malicious in his points. First, let's not even address the egregious lack of charity. Your argument, while somewhat myopic, might be better received if it wasn't peppered with screaming arrogance. Second, asserting that any of these points were posted in malice is pretty ludicrous. Where is the malice? Disagreement? The perfectly legitimate questioning of the potential for misapplication of a law is not malice, it's prudence. Blind defense of a law or political position just because it seems to be affiliated with one perspective or another is a simple and misguided way to approach politics. Just because something seems on its face to be "pro-life" doesn't make it good or worthy of consideration. Government intervention of ANY sort should be regarded with suspicion.

Edited for grammar.
[/quote]


Hey. Now I remember why I like you.

[Jesus_lol]

how could you ever forget, hassy?

thanks, MT!