Catholic Leaders Threaten Obama With 100% Chance of Civil Disobedience Read more

[Bunnykid68]

I'll bite. It isn't. Do you want the technical explanation for why it APPEARS blue to the human eye?

If it appears blue to me it must be blue

 

[poptab]

Has to do with sunlight and the atmosphere which causes the light waves to refract/reflect... something like that

This is mistaking the how for the why. Describing the physics behind how the sky appears blue to my eye doesn't answer why that is so.

Some would argue the why question is meaningless since it presumes a 'purpose' (for lack of a better word) that may or may not exist.

People who miss the distinction between how and why often fall prey to answering complicated questions with simplistic answers which are unsatisfying intellectually and philosophically to others. They then assume people who are unsatisfied with their answer are intellectually deficient.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is mistaking the how for the why. Describing the physics behind how the sky appears blue to my eye doesn't answer why that is so.

Some would argue the why question is meaningless since it presumes a 'purpose' (for lack of a better word) that may or may not exist.

People who miss the distinction between how and why often fall prey to answering complicated questions with simplistic answers which are unsatisfying intellectually and philosophically to others. They then assume people who are unsatisfied with their answer are intellectually deficient.

So, you are saying you are unsatisfied with my answer

 

[poptab]

So, you are saying you are unsatisfied with my answer

Your answer satisfies the how sort of but not the why. I dont know if there is an answer to why.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

This is mistaking the how for the why. Describing the physics behind how the sky appears blue to my eye doesn't answer why that is so.

Some would argue the why question is meaningless since it presumes a 'purpose' (for lack of a better word) that may or may not exist.

People who miss the distinction between how and why often fall prey to answering complicated questions with simplistic answers which are unsatisfying intellectually and philosophically to others. They then assume people who are unsatisfied with their answer are intellectually deficient.

Okay, now analyze MY answer

I'll bite. It isn't. Do you want the technical explanation for why it APPEARS blue to the human eye? Why do you assume that it is blue in appearance to all creatures? Why don't dogs see color? Why do cats see people as just BIGGER cats?

 

[LEaSH]

My cat sees me as a walking can opener.

 

[Bunnykid68]

My cat sees me as a walking can opener.

You have a smart cat

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I'm merely a scratching post.

 

[poptab]

Okay, now analyze MY answer

http://youtu.be/oUELTG7k6ug

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm merely a scratching post.

Are you for rent? Breaking in a kitten and could use an extra post

 

[actaeon277]

Wow have we gotten to the point of comparing the Catholic non-compliance to Obamacare with the Nazi's rounding up the Jews while normal German citizens just stood by and watched? Does anyone honestly think that situation could happen here in the US? I hope rational people would step in to stop something of this magnitude from ever escalating to that point. I am not naive enough to believe that we are closely approaching the point when people will have to choose sides and possibly defend that choice. Who knows, maybe we are!

I cringe when people are compared to Nazis.
But in this case, Nazis were the basis for a psychological study.
Were Germans programmed (by society) to follow orders.
Would that mean we were superior.
The answer, no. We (as a society) would have done the same.
Milgram Experiment

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Are you for rent? Breaking in a kitten and could use an extra post

No thanks, I'm breaking one in already. He is just now learning to stay the f*** off the dinner table! He has nothing but contempt for the rulz but he's catching on. It's taken some time but he is warming up to the dog now too. The backs of my hands are shredded though....

 

[LP1]

Interesting that destroying Eagle eggs is a crime, but killing unborn human babies isn't.

Since we're allowing individuals to make their own decisions about what may or may not be the taking of a life, let's do away with all laws having to do with killing. After all, I may believe you need killing and who is to say I'm wrong, especially after you're dead? I'm sure we all know people who "jist need killin'"; since we've set the precedent with the demographic group least able to defend themselves, why not extend the principle all the way through all demographic groups?

That argument is a straw man that completely misses the point and takes it to the ridiculous extreme. There's a huge difference between destroying a part of a woman's body that might become a human life vs. allowing people to kill each other. I feel sorry for people who can't understand the difference, and it scares me when they try to make public policy.

 

[LP1]

I am against people taxing me to fund a practice I object to and forcing a private hospital to provide a service they morally object to. Do you feel they should have to provide such services?

I am morally opposed to war, unless it is in direct response to an invasion of our country. Yet I am compelled to pay taxes to finance numerous immoral wars in which countless innocent lives have been lost.

 

[LP1]

Maybe years and decades of sexual abuse against children by ranking members of the church go unanswered?

+1

 

[PistolBob]

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

Second, what's worse - allowing an individual to make their own decision about what may or may not be the taking of a life, or promoting policies that deny basic rights to people who have already been born? Pulling the rug out from under retirees and the poor will create unconscionable suffering - that is far worse.

Look at it this way, once the religious hospitals all close, and take their silly superstitions with them, all you secular humanists can start building your own hospitals and corner the industry. Your opinion of abortion is very different from the facts, but it is a free country and I will respect your right to your opinion. No matter how wrong the rest of us think it may be.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

That argument is a straw man that completely misses the point and takes it to the ridiculous extreme. There's a huge difference between destroying a part of a woman's body that might become a human life vs. allowing people to kill each other. I feel sorry for people who can't understand the difference, and it scares me when they try to make public policy.

By this logic can I then kill anyone that has received a part of my body? Let's say donated blood/plasma, kidney, lung, etc...? I mean after all, they are now part of MY body and as such it should be up to me whether they live or die right? After all, who is to say they are a "life" since they in all likelihood wouldn't be without my body. Additionally, I do not wish to participate in funding abortion and thus monies collected from me should not subsidize the abortion clinics. Don't even get me started on the fraud of a charity calling itself the susan komen foundation for a cure.....Sure, if you want to have an abortion, go for it but don't use one single fraudulently collected dime of mine.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Look at it this way, once the religious hospitals all close, and take their silly superstitions with them, all you secular humanists can start building your own hospitals and corner the industry. Your opinion of abortion is very different from the facts, but it is a free country and I will respect your right to your opinion. No matter how wrong the rest of us think it may be.

With roughly 42% of the American population claiming to be pro-choice, and only roughly 20% of the American population claiming to be atheist or agnostic - it would be a mischaracterization to equate one with the other.

The simple fact is - just because someone is religious, does not mean that they all share the same beliefs. The split in this topic highlights that rather well.

I still believe that any private entity that does not receive public funding, should not be forced to provide any medical services - with a possible exception for emergency services when a life is in danger, provided they are licensed by the state to perform medical procedures.

However, I also believe that it is somewhat childish to claim that they will simply close their doors altogether. Refusing to provide abortions, and in turn being shut down would be one thing - but refusing to treat other ailments would be petty political theater IMO.

By this logic can I then kill anyone that has received a part of my body? Let's say donated blood/plasma, kidney, lung, etc...? I mean after all, they are now part of MY body and as such it should be up to me whether they live or die right?

That does not really follow the same path of logic... You are talking about killing someone for possessing a donated fluid or organ. It is no longer part of your body, because it was removed - in your analogy, with your permission. If someone has a child, and puts it up for adoption - nobody is saying they should have the right to kill the child at any time, or those that adopted it. Your analogy would be closer to this ridiculous belief.

Now, what if I said you were not permitted to choose to have a kidney removed, because it was against my religious belief or I believed it to be immoral?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

That argument is a straw man that completely misses the point and takes it to the ridiculous extreme. There's a huge difference between destroying a part of a woman's body that might become a human life vs. allowing people to kill each other. I feel sorry for people who can't understand the difference, and it scares me when they try to make public policy.

I reject your characterization of my argument as a "straw man" because it DOESN'T miss the point completely. Your argument is a recent development (40 years old or so) of a segment of our society that contradicts thousands of years of human experience. The vast majority of abortions are performed for no other reason than the convenience of the mother, with no regard for the unborn "potential" life she carries - and which, in most cases, she willingly participated in the act which caused its creation. Even if your argument held some merit, many abortions - the most objectionable abortions - are perpetrated on perfectly viable babies who are killed while they are being born.

So then we come back to the ridiculous idea that women "own" the products of conception in which they have participated with another person. While the woman tends to bear the consequences for conception outside of a recognized marital union of some sort, that has always been the case and is a tremendous incentive for society to frown on such situations. Our current obsession with "de-stigmatizing" out-of-wedlock births and their harmful effects on our society is based partially on the "free love movement" of the 70s and 80s (and "free love" is an oxymoron if ever there was one), partially on the Planned Parenthood propaganda, which was set into motion by a white female elitist as a eugenics program to rid society of "inferior races and genetic defectives" (and has worked as envisioned, at least in terms of numbers of minority babies killed), and the current popular philosophy which denigrates self-sacrifice in any form in favor of self-indulgence in all forms.

While you and others may believe such a society is "enlightened", you may live to discover it will lead to our destruction as a society and a nation.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I reject your characterization of my argument as a "straw man" because it DOESN'T miss the point completely. Your argument is a recent development (40 years old or so) of a segment of our society that contradicts thousands of years of human experience. The vast majority of abortions are performed for no other reason than the convenience of the mother, with no regard for the unborn "potential" life she carries - and which, in most cases, she willingly participated in the act which caused its creation. Even if your argument held some merit, many abortions - the most objectionable abortions - are perpetrated on perfectly viable babies who are killed while they are being born.

So then we come back to the ridiculous idea that women "own" the products of conception in which they have participated with another person. While the woman tends to bear the consequences for conception outside of a recognized marital union of some sort, that has always been the case and is a tremendous incentive for society to frown on such situations. Our current obsession with "de-stigmatizing" out-of-wedlock births and their harmful effects on our society is based partially on the "free love movement" of the 70s and 80s (and "free love" is an oxymoron if ever there was one), partially on the Planned Parenthood propaganda, which was set into motion by a white female elitist as a eugenics program to rid society of "inferior races and genetic defectives" (and has worked as envisioned, at least in terms of numbers of minority babies killed), and the current popular philosophy which denigrates self-sacrifice in any form in favor of self-indulgence in all forms.

While you and others may believe such a society is "enlightened", you may live to discover it will lead to our destruction as a society and a nation.

The Spartans would have likely viewed the situation differently.... Anything resembling a perceived weakness would lead to a child being discarded. This was not viewed as murder, but simply as the preservation of a high standard of citizens.

Abortion, and even infanticide - are not recent human creations.

I can totally understand how someone would disagree with both, and how both can be considered immoral.

However, neither is new, or against some ancient standard followed by civilization for thousands of years. In fact, the opposite is true in many cases.

Some make the case that infanticide still exists in certain eastern cultures.