Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Abortion: Is it time?

Abortion: Is it time? (Page 14)
Thread Tools
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 12:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Yes, it would. You can believe in God and not have any further established religious beliefs, however.
Wait, so the first amendment allows establishment of "just a little" state religion? That's a new one to me
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 12:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It is amazing to me how atheists indict the human construct of religion while failing to acknowledge the human nature inherent in it. The nature of which their very ilk is most guilty.
Hey don't lump all atheists in with this violent extremist, who would use atheism as a justification for a power grab. Most of us are peaceful
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 01:15 PM
 
In addition to my last post, which I hope you don't miss just because it's on the last page...

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I should just leave it alone in its unreasonably privileged position where no one is allowed to question it? (Sarcasm)
Its people leaving it alone and refusing to question, argue or criticise that leaves it on its pedestal. People only leave it alone to avoid the overblown reaction they get if they don't whether its a silly accusation of persecution or a full blown bombing campaign.
It's not on a particularly high pedestal. Even completely ignoring freedom of religion, there is a reason that the US Bill of Rights protects freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, and there's a reason George Orwell lampooned ideas like "thought criminals," and those reasons have nothing at all to do with religion. So even if religion per se was never mentioned in American politics, those aspects you despise (like-minded people assembling to reinforce their shared beliefs by giving speeches and appointing their own leadership) would still be going on, protected as any other of people's philosophical beliefs are protected.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok third time's a charm: then what part of your post doesn't fit the definition of a straw man?
You accused me of using a straw man argument for bringing up the link between pro-life and religion which you claimed was arguing against a point which no-one had made in the first place.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You accused me of using a straw man argument for bringing up the link between pro-life and religion which you claimed was arguing against a point which no-one had made in the first place.
Aaaaand four: in what way is it not a straw man?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What if you've already gotten the answer and you choose to ignore it?
Show me god's answer, im open to accepting it.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 09:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Wait, so the first amendment allows establishment of "just a little" state religion? That's a new one to me
No there is no "state religion." You can believe whatever you want. However, the official stance of the US government is that there is a God. They cannot however force this belief on citizens due to the First Amendment, or any other belief in regards to spirituality.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 09:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No there is no "state religion." You can believe whatever you want. However, the official stance of the US government is that there is a God. They cannot however force this belief on citizens due to the First Amendment, or any other belief in regards to spirituality.
The first says they can't establish religion, not "a" religion. If they establish that there is a god, how does that not constitute "establishment of religion?" Is god not part of "religion?"
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 18, 2011, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Aaaaand four: in what way is it not a straw man?
Aaaaaaaand no. You might think this is clever counting how many times you are asking me to explain this, but in reality you are just counting how many times something can be explained and you still don't understand it.

I'm not your english teacher. Reread your comments, reread mine. That part I have definitely already explained. You are either winding me up or you just aren't going to going to get it.

Look it up on wikipedia and if you still don't understand it, might I suggest you try reading a bible instead?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 08:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Show me god's answer, im open to accepting it.
Pray in earnest my friend and you shall have your answer.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Aaaaaaaand no. You might think this is clever counting how many times you are asking me to explain this, but in reality you are just counting how many times something can be explained and you still don't understand it.

I'm not your english teacher. Reread your comments, reread mine. That part I have definitely already explained. You are either winding me up or you just aren't going to going to get it.

Look it up on wikipedia and if you still don't understand it, might I suggest you try reading a bible instead?
Lots of bluster, but yet again no answer. Got it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 12:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Lots of bluster, but yet again no answer. Got it.
Clearly not.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 01:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
yet again no answer.
Clearly not.
classic
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 02:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
The first says they can't establish religion, not "a" religion.
Based on actually reading about the creation of the first, the clear statement they gave in the Declaration and the precedents they set in what they allowed and didn't allow back at the time of the signing of the Constitution, it's clear that your semantic argument doesn't change the fact that the latter is what they intended. Otherwise, they would have never allowed half of the religious expression they did in Government, and would never have gone on record as stating that our rights come from God. Does not compute....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 02:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
classic
I've answered you. I cannot however make you realise it. If you don't get it, go back to school or take up religion.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I've answered you. I cannot however make you realise it. If you don't get it, go back to school or take up religion.
Yes, you gave an answer ("superficially similar") which I roundly disproved, and since then, have simply refused to either give any answer, or admit your mistake.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 06:34 PM
 
This is getting seriously tired, but I'll give it one last try.

I stated that in my opinion, many pro lifers were trying to push their religious views onto others by making them law. Stupendousman tried to claim that we had already had this sub debate and finished it to some satisfaction and I disagreed which prompted you to respond with this:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Please stop embarrassing yourself. You and the other atheists are the only ones trying to drag religion into this topic. You've tried many times in this thread, and no one has taken the bait. Just accept failure on this tactic and move on with your life.
I posted my sarcastic translation of what you were saying:

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I dislike your debating tactics therefore you should go away and concede defeat.
and then you came back with this:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're telling your opponent what to argue. They call that a straw man. It's certainly easier to debate against a straw man than a real live opponent, but most people have more pride than that.
I pointed out that this was doubly incorrect since it was 1: Hypocrisy and 2: Not a straw man. I now guess that it is this part I need to explain. Firstly, its hypocrisy because you were telling me that I wasn't allowed to argue about religion as part of this debate on abortion = YOU telling ME WHAT TO ARGUE.

Second, its not a straw man because telling your opponent what they can and can't argue is NOT the definition of a straw man. A definition that you linked to on wikipedia within the following gem:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No, you're not allowed to argue against things that no one has argued for. That would be a straw man.

Edit: well technically you're allowed to argue anything you want, but arguing a straw man is stupid and you can expect to be called on it
Here you insinuated that by bringing up religion I was arguing against a point that no-one else had raised. By this "logic" any point anyone ever raises in a debate is a straw man the first time it is raised. You then contradicted yourself again by saying that I was now allowed to argue about whatever I liked but that I should expect you to mislabel it as a straw man and claim some kind of moral victory (this IS a straw man btw, you misrepresent my point by calling it a straw man and then make out like that counts as disproving the relevance of my point). Your simplification of straw man as "arguing against a point that hasn't been raised" is an oversimplification and utterly inadequate for your intended purpose. I called you on exactly this at the time:

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Firstly, arguing against a point that wasn't made is not the same as raising a point that you don't like.
Secondly a straw man isn't arguing against a point that wasn't made. It involves refuting something designed to superficially look like a point that was made. For example you are misrepresenting my point by labelling it a straw man
and then arguing that it should be disregarded for that reason. That in fact IS a straw man.

I'm not the one who should be embarrassed.
Now desperately flapping as far as I can tell you came up with this:

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Show one post in this thread that brought up religion to argue against abortion
"brought up," not responded to
I had already admitted to bringing the subject up and I had already explained why this statement was irrelevant before you even posted it.

Since this (lack of a) point, you have resorted to what I can only describe as the debating equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Aaaaand four: in what way is it not a straw man?
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Yes, you gave an answer ("superficially similar") which I roundly disproved, and since then, have simply refused to either give any answer, or admit your mistake.
You asked me to explain why you were guilty of using straw man arguments and I was not and I did. I offered an explanation which didn't offer anything superficially similar to your arguments. There was no logical fallacy in my rebuttals and you in no way even attempted, let alone succeeded in disproving my explanation, roundly or otherwise.

Hopefully this will explain once and for all so that you understand what a straw man is, what it isn't and how you were guilty of using one by falsely accusing me of the same. Sadly I am expecting another "I know you are but what am I?" retort, which I intend to ignore.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jun 19, 2011 at 06:43 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 06:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Otherwise, they would have never allowed half of the religious expression they did in Government
I'm curious what you're referring to.

and would never have gone on record as stating that our rights come from God. Does not compute....
Well, as I said before it would compute just fine, seeing as the first amendment came after the declaration, after a war no less, during which time things change, and it's far from odd that amendments would contradict/override precedents from an earlier time; in fact that is precisely the intended purpose of amendments.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I pointed out that this was doubly incorrect since it was 1: Hypocrisy and 2: Not a straw man. I now guess that it is this part I need to explain. Firstly, its hypocrisy because you were telling me that I wasn't allowed to argue about religion as part of this debate on abortion = YOU telling ME WHAT TO ARGUE.
If you read it again, you might notice I never said "allowed," you invented that. You're "allowed" to argue any stupid thing you want.

Here you insinuated that by bringing up religion I was arguing against a point that no-one else had raised. By this "logic" any point anyone ever raises in a debate is a straw man the first time it is raised.
Not at all. Don't you see any difference between "raising a point" and "arguing against a point?" Between arguing for a thing vs against one? Between proving and disproving?

You asked me to explain why you were guilty of using straw man arguments and I was not and I did. I offered an explanation which didn't offer anything superficially similar to your arguments.
Point of order, the straw man you use is not against me; I am not arguing against abortion (with or without religion). Maybe this is why you are so confused(?)

There was no logical fallacy in my rebuttals and you in no way even attempted, let alone succeeded in disproving my explanation, roundly or otherwise.
Ok then just tell me which part you disagree with:
1. A straw man is "to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and refuting that"
2. You are substituting the proposition of "moral objection to murder" with the proposition of "religious objection to murder"
3. These two are superficially equivalent
4. But they are unequivalent
5. You intend this to be a refutation of Stupendousman's "moral objection to murder"
6. This satisfies the definition in (1)

I just don't understand which step in this process you disagree with
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 08:00 PM
 
The original point was based on opinion polls and majority opinion. Religion is a factor when you measure public opinion and if you don't allow for it you don't get an accurate picture of public opinion. I happen to believe this matters if you intend to base any kind of legislation on those figures.

I actually don't agree that moral objection and religious objection are similar or equivalent, superficially or otherwise.
I imagine that some people don't draw this distinction at all which would actually support my raising of the issue. Many religious people aren't supposed to formulate their own opinions on things like abortion, they are expected to tow a party line on such matters. Religion therefore skews things like opinion polls because people give the answer the are required to give by their religion and not their true opinion. Especially if they are asked such a question while out with friends or family.

Abortion rates are traditionally highest among catholics who are traditionally its staunchest opponents. Do you think that even those catholics who have had abortions are going to give an honest answer to a public opinion poll? I don't. Even if they are conducted in privacy with guaranteed anonymity. Certainly not if they think others might overhear their answers.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2011, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Pray in earnest my friend and you shall have your answer.
I did as you asked and the voice said it does not matter because they become one with god regardless. So I guess that's a I don't care either way answer straight from the man himself. So now what?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 12:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
I did as you asked and the voice said it does not matter because they become one with god regardless. So I guess that's a I don't care either way answer straight from the man himself. So now what?
Quit the meds.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 01:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Quit the meds.
Someone gets an answer but it's not the one you agree with, so obviously they're insane.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The original point was based on opinion polls and majority opinion. Religion is a factor when you measure public opinion and if you don't allow for it you don't get an accurate picture of public opinion. I happen to believe this matters if you intend to base any kind of legislation on those figures.
...
Abortion rates are traditionally highest among catholics who are traditionally its staunchest opponents. Do you think that even those catholics who have had abortions are going to give an honest answer to a public opinion poll? I don't. Even if they are conducted in privacy with guaranteed anonymity. Certainly not if they think others might overhear their answers.
First you say that religion correlates with opposition to abortion, then you say that other religion correlates with increased abortion. How does this fit your theory that one is caused by the other? Wouldn't a more reasonable explanation be that since most people on earth are religious, that you can expect religion to correlate with everything?

Religions support charitable giving. Does that mean we should avoid any laws supporting charitable giving, because they must be religious?
Religions also oppose murder, theft, rape, and just about everything that also just happens to be illegal. Are we supposed to repeal those laws? Or should we accept the fact that religious morals and just plain old regular morals are going to overlap most of the time?

I actually don't agree that moral objection and religious objection are similar or equivalent, superficially or otherwise.
How can it be very difficult to separate the two if they aren't even similar?

I imagine that some people don't draw this distinction at all which would actually support my raising of the issue. Many religious people aren't supposed to formulate their own opinions on things like abortion, they are expected to tow a party line on such matters. Religion therefore skews things like opinion polls because people give the answer the are required to give by their religion and not their true opinion. Especially if they are asked such a question while out with friends or family.
This focus on the weakness of polls is not what you said when I first replied to you. Polls weren't even mentioned on that page or the one before it.
"the fact that we all know religion is the root of your position undermines your credibility from the start"
That's what you said. That is a straw man. It substitutes whatever was said about the morals of abortion with the superficially similar religious morals of abortion, then it attacks that. Are you now backpedaling from your statement, and you're going to make it all about how inaccurate polls are? That's fine with me.

PS The term is "toe the line"

PPS How do you know catholics have more abortions? Is it from a poll?

PPPS (edit) If that stuff about polls is really all you meant, then I feel bad for misinterpreting you before. But re-reading your earlier posts, there's no indication that's really what you were talking about.
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Jun 20, 2011 at 02:15 AM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 05:37 AM
 
Yes there is a contradiction there but its not mine. Catholics ARE very much opposed to abortion, but they have more of them than anybody else. Like I say, if you ask one I'd wager they would oppose the legalisation of abortion but this belief will take second place to the fear of being discovered having an affair or often having had sex before marriage.
They don't believe in pre-marital sex, but they do it anyway. Since they don't believe in birth control, they get pregnant but then they don't want their parents finding out that they broke the no sex rule so they break another rule to cover it up.
If you accost them out shopping with their families in a supermarket car park and ask them for their opinion on either pre marital sex or abortion, what are they going to say with both parents standing behind them?

Beliefs and actions are far from the same things.

As for my comment on the difficulty of separating the two, I meant that if someone is religious and they tell you they are against abortion, its is nearly impossible for someone else (and in many cases for the religious person themselves) to know whether their objection is their own moral opinion or merely the one drummed into them/forced upon them by their religion.
The religious here will not consider this to be a problem or even a difference but I'm afraid I do. Thats how in my opinion, religion undermines peoples political opinions. You are potentially not casting your own vote, but that of your pastor, or your imam, rabbi, Pope etc etc. Thats how "democracy" worked in medieval England when people were forced to vote however their Lord wished them to.

You are correct in that I didn't get very far at all with explaining my position in more detail. I believe I did mention the part about giving your vote over to your religious leader if not so well as above.

PS You're right about toe the line, I guess I say that more than I write it. I always thought it was some kind of sailing reference.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes there is a contradiction there but its not mine. Catholics ARE very much opposed to abortion, but they have more of them than anybody else. Like I say, if you ask one I'd wager they would oppose the legalisation of abortion but this belief will take second place to the fear of being discovered having an affair or often having had sex before marriage.
They don't believe in pre-marital sex, but they do it anyway. Since they don't believe in birth control, they get pregnant but then they don't want their parents finding out that they broke the no sex rule so they break another rule to cover it up.
If you accost them out shopping with their families in a supermarket car park and ask them for their opinion on either pre marital sex or abortion, what are they going to say with both parents standing behind them?

Beliefs and actions are far from the same things.
You missed "taking birth control and missed a dose and got pregnant......"
Guttmacher Institute: Abortion
Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".
2/3 of all US abortions are non Catholic patients.

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Yes there is a contradiction there but its not mine. Catholics ARE very much opposed to abortion, but they have more of them than anybody else. Like I say, if you ask one I'd wager they would oppose the legalisation of abortion but this belief will take second place to the fear of being discovered having an affair or often having had sex before marriage.
They don't believe in pre-marital sex, but they do it anyway. Since they don't believe in birth control, they get pregnant but then they don't want their parents finding out that they broke the no sex rule so they break another rule to cover it up.
If you accost them out shopping with their families in a supermarket car park and ask them for their opinion on either pre marital sex or abortion, what are they going to say with both parents standing behind them?

Beliefs and actions are far from the same things.
So what? The same is used to malign gays, they constantly say one thing and do the opposite. Does that mean you think we shouldn't take their word for anything (political)? Or would that just be giving homophobes a venue for lashing out at their favorite scapegoat?

We legislate by votes here, not opinion polls, so I don't see what your point is with this.

As for my comment on the difficulty of separating the two,
But they are similar, you're not still trying to deny that are you?

its is nearly impossible for someone else (and in many cases for the religious person themselves) to know whether their objection is their own moral opinion or merely the one drummed into them/forced upon them by their religion.
Same for murder, theft, rape, and every single thing that is a crime. So what?

As long as a convincing case can be made for the law, without actually leveraging religious "logic," the fact that religions of the world say "me too" is irrelevant.

The religious here will not consider this to be a problem or even a difference but I'm afraid I do. Thats how in my opinion, religion undermines peoples political opinions.
I am about as far removed from religious as you will find, but I also agree that this is not a problem or necessarily a difference. People believe whatever they want (it's unavoidable in addition to being kind of the whole point of this little experiment we call "freedom"), and if what they want to believe is a religion, it's no less valid than believing something they make up on the spot (which you could just as easily call a new religion anyway).

If people's opinion is that they want to follow religion, and you stop them, then isn't that just another case of their opinion being replaced by one drummed/forced on them (by you)? At least with religion they get to choose who is drumming them.

Religion doesn't undermine people's opinions, it's the reverse. People's opinions are what shaped religion. Religion is a codification of what people already believed to be right and wrong. It doesn't undermine their beliefs, it is their beliefs. You might have had a point in an era before religion was de facto à la carte.

You are potentially not casting your own vote, but that of your pastor, or your imam, rabbi, Pope etc etc. Thats how "democracy" worked in medieval England when people were forced to vote however their Lord wished them to.
Freedom of religion spoils your analogy. Medieval serfs weren't free to join and quit their Lord at will.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 01:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I'm curious what you're referring to.
It's your belief that the founders outlawed mention of God or faith as part of official ceremonies at the time of the founding? Is it your understanding that this was not allowed at the time?

Well, as I said before it would compute just fine, seeing as the first amendment came after the declaration, after a war no less, during which time things change, and it's far from odd that amendments would contradict/override precedents from an earlier time; in fact that is precisely the intended purpose of amendments.
I don't remember an amendment with the intent to change where it is our rights are granted. The best I've seen is one that makes clear that regardless of your beliefs, the government won't discriminate against you or make you believe something you choose not to.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
It's your belief that the founders outlawed mention of God or faith as part of official ceremonies at the time of the founding? Is it your understanding that this was not allowed at the time?
There's a difference between allowing for God (passive) and declaring that there is a God (active).

I don't remember an amendment with the intent to change where it is our rights are granted. The best I've seen is one that makes clear that regardless of your beliefs, the government won't discriminate against you or make you believe something you choose not to.
Amendments don't say "this is what we're changing," so I don't know why you'd expect to see that. The only way you know what it was changed from is by independent knowledge of what prior situation the amendment's text contradicts. Since what you commented on was a contradiction, this explains why you would see one.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 20, 2011, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Someone gets an answer but it's not the one you agree with, so obviously they're insane.
No, it was the degree of pathological dishonesty used as the foundation for that exchange that lead to what turned out to be an easy diagnosis.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2011, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
There's a difference between allowing for God (passive) and declaring that there is a God (active).
You mean like on our money, pledge and in the Declaration of Independence?

Amendments don't say "this is what we're changing," so I don't know why you'd expect to see that.
They outline what they hope to achieve. Usually, there are documents and historical records which will show intent as well. I can find no new amendments that corrects where it is our rights are derived from, and a nation can go on record as stating something exists while not forcing it's citizens to believe it. A good example of this is the EPA and MMGW.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2011, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
You mean like on our money, pledge and in the Declaration of Independence?
Yes, like those and like saying "god damnit" when you stub your toe or saying "jesus f* christ" when you're mad at someone. Do you take these phrases as religious reverence, or are they more of a word in the english language use to add weight to whatever context you need? IMO it's in the eye of the beholder since it's not specified. Either way, none of those things are law, not actionable, and if they were they would most likely violate the 1st amendment, which is law. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that laws take precedence.

They outline what they hope to achieve. Usually, there are documents and historical records which will show intent as well. I can find no new amendments that corrects where it is our rights are derived from, and a nation can go on record as stating something exists while not forcing it's citizens to believe it. A good example of this is the EPA and MMGW.
I'm confused why you keep saying "new amendments," as if you expect "old" amendments will be re-affirmed by passing new ones that say the same thing.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2011, 03:16 PM
 
heh good point. I use god damnit and Jesus Fing Christ once in a while and not in a religious reverence but as just standalone cursing for the situation.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 22, 2011, 10:22 AM
 
stupendousman, do you support a ban on birth control? Also, are you a vegetarian?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2011, 07:02 AM
 
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2011, 10:04 AM
 
Meh. Most of those "outraged" by the charges have no problem with the charges/convictions in this case:
Murder of Laci Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Murder of Laci Peterson took place in 2002. Laci Peterson, born Laci Denise Rocha (May 4, 1975 – c. December 24, 2002),[1] was the subject of a highly discussed murder case after she went missing while seven and a half months pregnant with her first child. Laci was reportedly last seen alive on December 24, 2002. Her husband, Scott Peterson, was convicted of murder in the first degree for Laci, and in the second degree for their prenatal son. Scott is currently on death row at San Quentin State Prison.
Scott Peterson was convicted of second degree murder of what someone earlier describes as a "parasite" Did Conner meet the definition of "personhood?"
¡Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2011, 01:31 PM
 
And the award for "Worst Pun Ever" goes to...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 25, 2011, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Meh. Most of those "outraged" by the charges have no problem with the charges/convictions in this case:
Murder of Laci Peterson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scott Peterson was convicted of second degree murder of what someone earlier describes as a "parasite" Did Conner meet the definition of "personhood?"
And this surprises you? The guy killed his heavily pregnant wife and mutilated her body. Given that warranted a first degree murder charge and a death sentence, what would be the point in disputing the lesser charge?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 27, 2011, 07:55 PM
 
I've got an idea. Let's see how much better this thread will move forward if we all... take a big breathe and count to 3... and then put Uncle Skeleton on ignore.

Abortion: we should allow abortion. I like science, and agree that a small clump of cells is ok to kill. After certain point, it's not ok.

Canada has some balls here... abortion has very little time constraints.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2011, 02:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh View Post
stupendousman, do you support a ban on birth control? Also, are you a vegetarian?
No, and no.

My position is based on consistently applied science.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2011, 02:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
I've got an idea. Let's see how much better this thread will move forward if we all... take a big breathe and count to 3... and then put Uncle Skeleton on ignore.

Abortion: we should allow abortion. I like science, and agree that a small clump of cells is ok to kill. After certain point, it's not ok.

Canada has some balls here... abortion has very little time constraints.
Yeah..what's so big about time constraints? I think we should do away with them.

That would make it easier for me to collect on my Grandma who just got out of an operation and is on temporary life support. That would be MUCH more convenient, I agree!!!

     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 28, 2011, 02:49 AM
 
Maybe your grandma would get more consideration if she had "balls" like Canada
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 6, 2011, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
Abortion: we should allow abortion. I like science, and agree that a small clump of cells is ok to kill. After certain point, it's not ok.
Abortion, we should allow a single voucher for one legal abortion. The good news is this will not conflict with science because science does not regard a zygote as a "clump of cells that is okay to kill". This will cut the number of abortions in half and because so few accept the slippery slope arguments against abortion, we can apply it toward an eventual, outright ban.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2011, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by freudling View Post
I've got an idea. Let's see how much better this thread will move forward if we all... take a big breathe and count to 3... and then put Uncle Skeleton on ignore.

Abortion: we should allow abortion. I like science, and agree that a small clump of cells is ok to kill. After certain point, it's not ok.

Canada has some balls here... abortion has very little time constraints.
I think you mean "Canada has no balls here." Correct? Because my understanding is that we're one of the only modern countries that haven't legislated on the issue at all - technically you can abort at 8 months, if you can find a doctor willing to do that (which would be the real challenge I imagine). Is an 8-month fetus a "small clump of cells"?

Our politicians simply haven't had the balls to address this issue, instead leaving it to judges/doctors to decide.
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 7, 2011, 02:38 PM
 
Thats only because the Supreme court of Canada ruled the 1969 law about abortion was unconstitutional and a few attempts since to pass new abortion laws have failed. And its such a hot topic of fear with Harpers Government he won't touch it either knowing it would be the death of his government. While there is no federal law over abortion each province has its own rules about it.

From Wikipedia, no citation so no idea how true this is
in Quebec, there is currently no doctor who will perform a third-term abortion unless the health of the woman is in great peril or there is a genetic disorder. Currently the province sends women who seek to have third-term abortions performed to the United States. Quebec is currently actively looking to hire a doctor to do third-term abortions, but has not been successful as of October 2004.
Overall unless its a medical emergency you cant get late term abortions here though its not technically illegal either. Doctor's ethics seem to be keeping that in check.

And I really have no problems with the judges and doctors deciding things either. politicians are idiots.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:02 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2