Moderator: Community Team
Phatscotty wrote:the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....
rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Lootifer wrote:Phatscotty wrote:the media NEVER conspires!!!!! Like minded entities tacitly cooperating to further the same agenda is a line the media has too much honor to cross....
But there was plenty of question asked of Obama, and there's plenty of pro-republican bias media (give or take there seems to be roughly equal amounts of media bias on both sides); so really circumstantial evidence points towards there being little chance of a conspiracy occuring (since you would need to "pay off" all the right wing media, and why, then, only do it over this one issue?).
I am really inclined that the pro-repub media just failed in this one area; seems far more likely.
However, TGD, to you think Obama won the election because of this one issue? That is it was the one issue that tipped the balance? As that would answer my other question above adequately
Oh and maybe i lied when i said I didnt care I just dont care as much as I care about say, other stuff.
Night Strike wrote:rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Valuing life should never be "adjusted".
Chariot of Fire wrote:As for GreecePwns.....yeah, what? A massive debt. Get a job you slacker.
Viceroy wrote:[The Biblical creation story] was written in a time when there was no way to confirm this fact and is in fact a statement of the facts.
GreecePwns wrote:Night Strike wrote:rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Valuing life should never be "adjusted".
So, how much will the Republican party have to implode before the social issues conflict is resolved?
This is directed at both of you as well as other (economic or social) conservatives on the site.
Night Strike wrote:rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Valuing life should never be "adjusted".
rockfist wrote:Night Strike wrote:rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Valuing life should never be "adjusted".
So we should just keep losing forever?
I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.
rockfist wrote:Night Strike wrote:rockfist wrote:The fact of the matter is, if we conservatives, blame the media, and blame the stupidity of the opposition, instead of trully looking at our own policies -we will doom ourselves to defeat again. I think its clear that our conservative social policies are unpopular with a good portion of the electorate (I'll never understand why abortion is such a big issue for a lot of voters, but what is important is that it is). I think we should give up on things like that so we can enact the fiscally conservative policies that will help our country. Most people want low taxes and low spending. Most women don't want to be told what to do with their bodies - and for many of them - that trumps low taxes. We should adjust accordingly.
Valuing life should never be "adjusted".
So we should just keep losing forever?
I value economics more than social issues. This is my opinion. Its not that I am pro-choice per se - its just a question of what I value more. If you want to value life more - then make your case and get the majority of people to support it or be okay with it - otherwise its a loser and I won't stand for it in my party - because if their is one thing I hate - its a loser.
Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."
Metsfanmax wrote:Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."
These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.
Metsfanmax wrote:Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."
These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.
thegreekdog wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Night Strike wrote:If there was a political party that supported allowing adults to kill their senile parents once they became a burden to the adult-child caretaker, would that party ever get any support? Yet that's exactly what we have, and even worse, when the Democrat party supports killing unborn children simply because they will be a burden once they are born. Taking the life of an innocent person should never be a matter of taking political sides. I can't just suddenly change my position and say "It's ok to kill your unborn child simply because it will be an inconvenience to your life."
These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then go home and eat a nice steak dinner. Their hypocrisy is incredible.
That's the hypocrisy you're going with? You're likening a cow to a human fetus? If you are the progressive future, I shudder.
There are so many better ones. Like...
These are the same people who would fight tooth and nail to protect the life of a fetus, and then also fight tooth and nail in favor of the death penalty.
Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.
Ray Rider wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.
The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol
Ray Rider wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.
The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol
Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.
Metsfanmax wrote:Ray Rider wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:And yes, that's the hypocrisy I'm going with. I'm not likening a cow to a human fetus; I'm suggesting that an adult cow is actually more valuable than a human fetus, in the sense that it is more intelligent.
The value of a life is based on its intelligence? I have a mentally handicapped uncle so I find that assumption very concerning...and no, I'm not talking about Uncle Saxi lol
You are thinking about intelligence too narrowly. When questioning whether the taking of a life can be justified, one needs some metric to judge the value of that life. If you are particularly religious, your religion might tell you that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human animal life. Suppose we neglect that. Then how can one compare the value of human life with, say, bovine life? There is no clear cut distinction because all mammals live on a sort of continuum of intelligence and other relevant parameters. Also, humans clearly live on their own continuum (some humans are more intelligent than others) so there's no cutoff between humans and other intelligent, conscious mammals or birds that is not arbitrary.
So, a better way to think about it is a concept that I'll borrow from Peter Singer, the idea of replaceability: in general, one should only be relatively unconcerned about the taking of lives that are replaceable (that is, the life you take could be just as easily replaced by another member of the species). Intelligence is one obvious way to clarify which species are replaceable and which are not; consciousness is another. An adult pig, for something, is actually a rather intelligent animal. It is most likely not the case that you could kill an adult pig and replace it with another one, and the net result would be the same. The adult pig has some set of memories and experiences that collectively form its identity, as it were, and it demonstrates the desire to continue staying alive (this last claim is a subtle point, which we can get into further if people want; for now, take it as a given). Therefore one ought not just arbitrarily take its life; there needs to be a good reason for it, just as there needs to be a good reason why you would kill an innocent human. On the other hand, a human fetus has no memories or experiences that define its existence, and has no desire to continue living that you are ending when you terminate its life. So for ethical purposes, a fetus is replaceable. There's a huge gaping hole in this argument as I've presented it, which is that it is clearly not replaceable when you consider the effect it has on other people (i.e the parents), but this can be addressed to, if people are sufficiently interested.
Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.
Night Strike wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.
Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.
Night Strike wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:Ignore what TGD says; those who believe in rights for non-human animals are an important section of the progressive movement, and the ideas I'm expressing here are relatively commonly accepted in that community.
Are you really one of those people who believe such crazy ideas? It's insane that people would give more rights to animals than protect those of their fellow humans.
TGD wrote:Abortion is a hot button issue 30+ years after Roe v. Wade because it is has political clout. There really is no other reason. The Repocrats can scare their constituencies with "more abortions" or "no abortions" and get them out to vote. Metsfanmax is merely regurgitating the Democrat side of that coin. Abortions are legal in most states only because of the Roe v. Wade decision, which determined that the right to privacy overrode a compelling state interest only up until viability. To suggest there are any other reasons why abortion is legal in most states is absurd. Abortions are not legal because the fetus is not intelligent or because the fetus cannot live on its own.
Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.
thegreekdog wrote:Metsfanmax wrote:You may have misunderstood my post. I was not trying to phenomenologically explain U.S. abortion law or defend it morally. I was presenting my individual thinking on the ethical topic of abortion.
Ah, that's a completely separate issue. Legally/constitutionally/politically, I'm pro choice because of the Roe v. Wade decision. Personally I'm vehemently against abortion unless it's to save the life of the mother, in accordance with my religion. I will not foist my personal opinions on you or try to convince you (or federal and state governments and courts) that the Roman Catholic views on abortion are correct, so I won't stand in your way in this thread.
thegreekdog wrote:I have no problem with your critique of Romney. It's valid. Your seemingly blind support of Obama is staggering.
MegaProphet wrote:Another thing to consider is that abortion isn't just a social issue it can also be an economic issue.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users