DNC SEEKS TO WOO CATHOLICS

[Jaime]

I'd like to remind folks of something

The republican party is not pro-life. They are simply less pro-choice than the democrats.

[MichaelFilo]

You are right. They are a step in the right direction. Not the end of the right direction.

Remdinding isn't neccessary. I don't think any REpublican here would stay REpublican if there was a party more inclined towards the Catholic teachings and had a [b]reasonable possibility of getting candidates in office[/b]. However, that doesn't exist.

God bless,
Mikey

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 20 2005, 12:41 AM'] The government already regulates a woman's body when the FDA quashes certain drugs as unsafe, or when the DEA says that you can't smoke marijuana or when the government says you can't use your body to suffocate someone or you can't use your body to rape someone or you can't use your own body to run onto a freeway or you can't use your own body to tresspass, etc. That is just tired rhetoric. You don't have to be a theist to be against abortion.
Also, yes, the Dems are quite radical on this subject. America has the most liberal laws concerning abortion, far more liberal than Britian, by the way. And in fact, i would say that both the Republican and Democrats are far more liberal in many ways that either the Labour or Conservative parties since they grew out of the Revolutionary war tradition of Locke and Rosseau. Americans are committed to individual liberty which is the heart of liberalism. Britian's parties both have reactionary totalitarian aspects to them, of elites governing every aspect of the citizens' lives.
European conservativism is very different than American conservatism. American conservatives are not the party of blood, soil and aristocratic privilege. That is why neoconservatives can spring from radical Marxists of the 60s. [/quote]
The drug war thing is actually awfully ineffective for the people, but great for votes.

The not using your body to inflict harm on other people thing is a non sequitur, truthfully.

<<you can't use your body to suffocate someone or you can't use your body to rape someone or you can't use your own body to run onto a freeway or you can't use your own body to tresspass, etc. >>

[argent_paladin]

Ah, Atheist Alex! So, your principle is not "One can do whatever one wants with one's body" but rather "One can do whatever one wants with one's body as long as it doesn't harm another." So, it wasn't a non sequitur at all. Pro-lifers assert that an abortion is not just an act involving the woman's body alone, but the body of the unborn baby (or fetus if you prefer). So, according to your logic, abortion is wrong IF it harms another. So the question is: is a fetus another? It has unique DNA, unique fingerprints, its own heart, brain, etc. It grows, it is self-organizing. It fits all the biological and medical conditions of life. If you are so objective and scientific, perhaps you should reexamine your assumptions.
Also, remember that it was not so long ago that women were not considered fully human, or Jews, or blacks. Just because the majority doesn't consider a life a life, doesn't make it true.

And, of course individual democrats can be prolife. Indeed, Harry Reid, the minority leader of the Senate is pro-life. But the Dems are going in the opposite direction as the country on this. With the growing power of kos and left wingers like Dean, there is no chance that any pro-life movement will be seen in the next four years (except by Hillary). I predict that the Dems will be slaughtered in the 2006 Senate race (losing 2-4 seats, so the Repubs will be very close to the magic 60) because the Repubs will copy the Daschle strategy and target pro-aborters in red states. Maybe then the Dems will wake up and moderate their platform on abortion.

[AtheistAlex]

Do not use sarcasm and patronism to try to push your points on me. I see now, instead of arguments, you just push the other person until they slip, right?

One cannot assert their rights to take away others'. That's a concept we can learn from looking at the Bill of Rights. You can have your religious stance, just as long as you don't take away my right to have my own. You can say what you want, just as long as you aren't taking my rights as well.

Similarly, we have taken to this idea of the rugged individual, and thusly, of the private individual, I do what I want, as I am a citizen. You can do the same, as you are a citizen.

That's why I, given the chance, would vote for a woman's right to make a choice when the time comes.

If abortion must be illegal, then riddle me this, what will you do for the women who truly wants to have an abortion? What will you do for the children who'll grow up with mothers who don't want them, because they were raped? I can't answer those, so I would rather side with giving the woman the options as well as information on abortion and both sides to help her make an informed decision. I would not let the government make that decision for her. So, if you wanted my abortion stance so far, there it is. I have grown tired of your word games, so I just cut to the chase. Sorry.

Edited February 25, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[argent_paladin]

But what do you do when two rights come into conflict, Alex? I have a right to free speech. You have a right to privacy. So, what happens if I am yelling outside your window at two in the morning? Rights are not absolute. Your rights as a citizen are not absolute. That is why you have your rights as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of another. So, given that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, she may do so, *UNLESS IT INFRINGES ON THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER*. I have a right to shoot my gun, unless it infringes on your right to live. I have a right to swing a bat around, until it infringes on your right to walk without threat of head trauma. Our lives are a give and take of rights because we are social creatures. Anytime two humans interact, there is an interaction of rights.
So you still must answer my question: Does a fetus have rights? If not, why not?

I will answer your question if you answer a similar one:
what will you do for the women who must kill their toddlers? What will you do for the children who'll grow up with mothers who don't want them, because they were raped?

If you can choose to kill a fetus because you cannot afford it, why not a 5 year old? If you can coose to kill a fetus because it is a product of rape or incest, why not a 5 year old?

Do you think that a woman can choose to abort her fetus solely because she doesn't want a girl? Or soley because she doesn't want a gay child (in the event that there is a proven biological basis?"

My questions boil down to one essential question: When does a person acquire those writes you say you hold so dear? Where do they come from? From the fact that there is no umbilical cord connecting them to the mother? From the fact that their head is outside the birth canal? From the fact that they have self-consciousness or can reason? Where? If you are not sure, then are you really willing to err on the side of murder?

[argent_paladin]

In case you are too stubborn to see my arguments again, here it is in schematic form:

A. Innocent human beings posess a right to life that is inviolate,
B. Fetuses are innocent human beings,

ergo,

C. Fetuses posess a right to life that is inviolate.

So, again, my question to you Atheist Alex, is, do you deny premise A or premise B? If B, why B?


Oh, and to answer your questions. No woman must have an abortion. If you think that a woman "must have an abortion" then you deny your own rhetoric of "choice" because there is not choice if a woman "must have an abortion." Second, I would place the child in a good home with loving parents. Why do prospective parents travel to Russia and China to adopt children? There are plenty of loving families. Is it really your contention that we as a societly should kill all those whe don't want? I don't think I want to be a part of that world.

Edited February 25, 2005 by argent_paladin

[AtheistAlex]

I do not have to deny either premise to support the freedom to have an abortion. I think a woman should be allowed to abort because it's not my call, for one thing.

Fetuses are living organisms, but, are not human. Just as sperm and eggs are not human. But that said, I cannot see anyway I would advise someone to have an abortion. It's not desirable, because of the horrible trauma it would cause, in addition to the loss of possible life.

But, there are cases in which a woman may be hurting severely due to the pregnancy, or the child could have a terminal illness that will cause them terrible conditions until an early death. Tell me, are those the scenarios you are advocating? Where people suffer unending pain until their very short life ends? I don't want to be on that world, either.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 25 2005, 05:01 AM'] I do not have to deny either premise to support the freedom to have an abortion. I think a woman should be allowed to abort because it's not my call, for one thing.

Fetuses are living organisms, but, are not human. Just as sperm and eggs are not human. But that said, I cannot see anyway I would advise someone to have an abortion. It's not desirable, because of the horrible trauma it would cause, in addition to the loss of possible life.

But, there are cases in which a woman may be hurting severely due to the pregnancy, or the child could have a terminal illness that will cause them terrible conditions until an early death. Tell me, are those the scenarios you are advocating? Where people suffer unending pain until their very short life ends? I don't want to be on that world, either. [/quote]
The first part of your post made no sense. If you believe that an innocent human beings inviolate right to life was being violated, why would that not be your call? It is "your call" because you are a fellow human being. If someone was abusing a spouse, would you say it wasn't "your call" to take action? If someone was whipping his slave, would you say that is not "your call"?

But then, after you say that you don't have to deny either premise, you deny one. I give you props for finally answering my question. I agree with you that sperm and eggs are not human. But a fetus is more than a sperm or egg. So a fetus is a living organism, but it is not human? Then what is it? And isn't a human fetus, different than a pig fetus, or a dog fetus or a cow fetus? So then, isn't it "human" in that it has human DNA and everything that humans should have? So if it is human and a "living organism" then it is a "human living organism", in other words, a human being.

So, you advocate killing a child because it has a terminal disease? Is that the mother's choice as well? So, we are to decide which lives are worth living and which are not? Do you really want to give the US government the power to decide which lives are worthy of continuing and which are not? I am not. I say that all life is worthwhile. That no life should be ended prematurely.

Nazi Germany thought that it knew which lives were worth living. To them, being a Jew was equivalent of having a terminal illness, as was being a homosexual, gypsy, etc. Again, do you really want the government to decide what lives should be terminated? I certainly don't.

[AtheistAlex]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Feb 25 2005, 05:20 AM'] Nazi Germany thought that it knew which lives were worth living. To them, being a Jew was equivalent of having a terminal illness, as was being a homosexual, gypsy, etc. Again, do you really want the government to decide what lives should be terminated? I certainly don't. [/quote]
All right, I'm invoking Godwin's Law here.
This thread has gone on too long.

Oh and so as to answer your statement, the Nazi analogy does not apply. In that case we could say the same about prisons and death row, as well as our war halfway across the world in the name of "freedom." So I guess you are yourself in favor of the governement deciding life and death.

I am in support of freedom of the mother. I could just as easily say "Are you in favor of our government telling us what to do with our bodies?" But you already saw the problem. That, like what you said, is already happening in other arenas. It's always happened, and so we're at an impass, and you are forced to bring in a Nazi analogy. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has stopped being logical via Godwin's Law.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]I am in support of freedom of the mother. I could just as easily say "Are you in favor of our government telling us what to do with our bodies?" But you already saw the problem. That, like what you said, is already happening in other arenas. It's always happened, and so we're at an impass, and you are forced to bring in a Nazi analogy. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has stopped being logical via Godwin's Law.[/quote]

AthiestAlex, there is a prominent Australian philosopher named Peter Singer who advocates a position similar to yours. He reaches the proper final conclusion from his premises. I just want to know if you do as well. You claim that a mother should have the freedom to decide on if she gets an abortion or not. Would you also extend that right to children who have already been born? Singer, in fact, does do this. Basicly, he takes the exact same argument that people who are pro-life do and uses it to go the other way. So my question is, do you also support the mother being able to kill her children tha are already born? If yes, at what age does this right stop, and if no, why not?

I look forward to your response.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 25 2005, 03:47 AM'] One cannot assert their rights to take away others'. [/quote]
What do you think the abortion proponents are doing??????

[Jaime]

[quote]One cannot assert their rights to take away others'. That's a concept we can learn from looking at the Bill of Rights. [/quote]

That happens every day. One simple example is you do not have the right to drive without a seat belt. We have taken that right away. If you were to drive without a seatbelt, you would hurt no one but yourself if you were to get into an accident. However, the powers that be have restricted your rights over your own body.

Any one of you could rattle off another dozen examples of this without breaking a sweat. The whole " don't take away a woman's right" argument falls apart when the realization comes that we in fact have very few rights. What most people call rights are actually priveleges. The privileges of the individual can be restricted for the greater good of society.

[argent_paladin]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Feb 26 2005, 01:34 PM']
I am in support of freedom of the mother. I could just as easily say "Are you in favor of our government telling us what to do with our bodies?" But you already saw the problem. That, like what you said, is already happening in other arenas. It's always happened, and so we're at an impass, and you are forced to bring in a Nazi analogy. So, as far as I'm concerned, this thread has stopped being logical via Godwin's Law. [/quote]
Ah, leaving the argument right when you were about to be pinned down.
You seem particularly unable to make distinctions.
First, there is a distinction between human cells (even germ cells like sperm and egg) and a human being. To deny that a human zygote has 26 chromazomes (the same as you or I) from the moment of conception is to deny reality. Sperm has 13 and egg has 13. Neither is a human. Neither, if left to do what it does, alone will grow to adulthood.
Second, you fail to see a distinction between guilt and innocence. An armed aggressor or a convicted criminal are not innocent. A fetus is. The right to life of an innocent human being is inviolate. Such is not the case for other humans or animals.
I wrote in a post earlier today that the analogy between the Holocaust and abortion is an apt one, not least because the Nazis pioneered forced sterilizations and other reproductive techniques. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was one of the leaders of the eugenics movement, the same one that the Nazis gave a bad name. There are genocidal aspects to abortion as about one in three abortions are of black fetuses, even though blacks are only about 10% of the population. Planned Parenthood deliberately places its abortion mills in minority neighborhoods and advertises heavily in minority communities.
Here are Sanger's own words:
[quote]The modern day abortion rights movement began as the American Birth Control League in 1921. Among its founding board members were Margaret Sanger, Lothrup Stoddard, and C. C. Little. The latter two people were known for their racist views, but Margaret Sanger continually shows up in the company of other racists. In fact, she was the guest speaker at a Ku Klux Klan rally in Silverlake, N. J. in 1926.[1] Not only did she not disassociate herself from these racist views, her own writings leave little doubt as to her sympathies. In implementing a plan called the "Negro Project," that was designed to sterilize Blacks and reduce the number of Black children being born in the south, Sanger wrote:

"[We propose to] hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. And we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." [2][/quote]

Finally, there is an implicit unproven assumption in your question "Are you in favor of the government telling us what to do with our bodies?". And that is, "A fetus is simply an extension of its mother, that is, part of the mother's body." But that is exactly the point that I object to. First you have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fetus has no independent status. Only then will I agree with you that the government is invasive.
I have placed my evidence that the fetus is human life on the table. I haven't seen a whit of evidence from your side that it is not life. The biological definition of life is quite minimal and a fetus passes with flying colors (not surprising since all agree that a single-celled bacteria is life, how could a multi-cellular one not be).
However, the important questions are "is it independent life?" and "is it human life?" It is human from a biological standpoint because it has human dna. It is independent because it can be removed and continue to function and live (say, if we invent artifical wombs.)

My public policy compromise is that a woman has a limited right to not bear a child. But she has no right to kill her fetus. These are two separate acts. But, if the woman exercises her right to abort, she may but she cannot first kill the fetus. It must be allowed to try to survive on its own. In practice then, abortion would be illegal after viability, around 26 weeks. I think the majority of the country would be comfortable with this compromise (even Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that ensoulment occurred at quickening, partway through gestation (but he was relying on faulty biology)). In any case, I look forward to hearing your argument that a fetus is not life all the way up until it breaches. I don' t think that there is one, but I am willing to be convinced.

[Guest Jakedubbleya]

Getting away from Alex, who obviously outdone by simple logic has fled the scene under cover of this so called "Godwins Law". A law that I am entertaining to mean that the conclusion of an argument can no longer be drawn by common logic but only by faith from that designated point onward. The problem is, that point was never reached or even mentioned by anyone but yourself, next time try using your brain along with your selfish thinking.

anyhoo...

Why I can vote democrat and still be morally sound! (big picture):

Bush means America sold to the highest bidder

Highest bidder soon to be China

China has no reservations on abortion (or murder for that matter), and no reasons, or holds (hippies anyone?), to not invade a weak America.

I say keep America strong, and let Americans change the policy, it will change, and when it does we will have the position to influence the policies of other governments on the issue. In the meantime we'll save a few trees and shelter a few crazy people