How can you be a Catholic and vote Democrat?

[chess9]

Medellon:

No thanks, I'd require more raw material before I tried to mold such a primitive mind.

-Robert

 

[Medellon]

Originally posted by: chess9
Medellon:

No thanks, I'd require more raw material before I tried to mold such a primitive mind.

-Robert

So you can't...well thanks for trying.

 

[chess9]

Zebo:

Yes, most political commentators know the Republicans have used this issue to garner support from fundies and Catholics. The Republican Party could lose 10-15 Senators from Northern and Mid-Western states-and that's a conservative number-if we got into a really huge political battle on abortion. What we have now is just polite dialectic tension. Reversing Roe v. Wade would be like fighting the Vietnamese War all over again. And when some state prosecutes a woman for having an abortion all hell will break loose. By way of example, my wife and I are opposed to abortion BUT we aren't going to support reversing Roe v. Wade or imposing criminal sanctions because it isn't the way that problem should be addressed. You hear these wackos complaining about abortion but not telling us exactly how reversing Roe v. Wade would be implemented. Since they believe it is murder, then one must assume they want murder prosecutions. It would take exactly one murder prosecution against a mother or doctor for the site of that prosecution to be turned into another Gettysburg. These people have no idea what they want to unleash. Talk about reaping the whirlwind.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Medellon:

You're right I CAN'T. You are too dense.

-Robert

 

[Rayden]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
John Kerry has never supported abortion, so the entier foundation of your of your argument is off base; you are going to have to show a little intelligence yourself if you want an intelligent answers back.

Yeah, he supports the woman's right to choose, not abortion...

Talk about splitting hairs:disgust:

I disagree. One can find abortion morally horrific but still believe it is not his right to impose his moral standards on anyone else.

So then you would apply this standard to rape? Don't even try to argue that rape has a victim while abortion does not.

People, whether you like it or not there are moral absolutes.

 

[Abraxas]

First demonstrate to me that rape is illegal based on moral grounds and not alternately grounds of desirability, utility, etc. and then we can talk about whether the moral standard behind rape, if there even is one in law, being applied to abortion.

 

[Medellon]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
First demonstrate to me that rape is illegal based on moral grounds and not alternately grounds of desirability, utility, etc. and then we can talk about whether the moral standard behind rape, if there even is one in law, being applied to abortion.

Is this guy crazy or what?

 

[Abraxas]

How so? You don't think there are reasons that can be made for why rape should be illegal without falling back on a moral standard?

 

[EDoG2K]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
How so? You don't think there are reasons that can be made for why rape should be illegal without falling back on a moral standard?

I know i know!! because women should have a choice to have sex or not to have sex! and a choice to have an abortion or not have one! i'm right, aren't i?

 

[Abraxas]

We have a winner!

 

[CQuinn]

Medellon, sorry chess9 gave up too easily on that one.

The simple answer he should have provided was that you overlook the existence of
recessive genes. Genetic factors that are carried from one generation to the next, but
that do not necessarily become active unless certain other conditions are met during
gestation. Assuming homosexuality has a genetic basis, its existence could be
explained as a natural biological effect.

"If homosexuality were genetic would it not have been "bred" out long ago due to the inability to procreate?"

Another logical flaw in your statement is the assumption that homosexuals are incapable of procreation
with members of the opposite sex. Masters and Johnson proved the fallacy of that logic flaw over
60 years ago.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
First demonstrate to me that rape is illegal based on moral grounds and not alternately grounds of desirability, utility, etc. and then we can talk about whether the moral standard behind rape, if there even is one in law, being applied to abortion.

There are currently laws on the books in at least 29 states against abortion. I can make arguments against abortion without using any moral basis. I have done so in a considerable number of threads in this forum. When you get right down to it, the USSC fabricated a story to legalize something on their agenda. The dissenters in the case knew this at the time and mentioned it in their opinions. The decision was FAR overreaching given the basis for the case, creating a more blatant display of judicial activism, as the court broke its own rules on how it may rule on a case. Then, it proceded to directly legislate on how states may govern abortion.

 

[Abraxas]

Alright, lay one on me that doesn't ultimately come down to morallity.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Alright, lay one on me that doesn't ultimately come down to morallity.

Do a search for 'abortion' with the author 'cyclowizard.' You should find a couple. Read the link in my sig if you want some factual information. It's not complete, but it's likely stuff you've never heard before. School has been sucking up my time like crazy, unfortunately, so I have had precious little time to work on it.

 

[replicator]

What kind of idiotic topic is this.

Would you want to have religious parties in the US like those in the middle east?
To vote by religious reasons over logical reasoning on who would better lead the nation?

I guess some would want the Pope and the President to be the one and the same.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: replicator
What kind of idiotic topic is this.

Would you want to have religious parties in the US like those in the middle east?
To vote by religious reasons over logical reasoning on who would better lead the nation?

I guess some would want the Pope and the President to be the one and the same.

You're assuming that religion and reason are mutually exclusive.

 

[Abraxas]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Alright, lay one on me that doesn't ultimately come down to morallity.

Do a search for 'abortion' with the author 'cyclowizard.' You should find a couple. Read the link in my sig if you want some factual information. It's not complete, but it's likely stuff you've never heard before. School has been sucking up my time like crazy, unfortunately, so I have had precious little time to work on it.

All I was able to find that didn't have a moral or religous basis was the argument that we need to assign rights to the fetus. Personally, I think that is far to open a debate for us to start limiting women's rights on.

 

[jjzelinski]

They are. Faith precludes evidence, and evidence is the basis of logic. In fact, if you were to ever witness a miracle you would instanteneously become faithless because you no longer held a belief but instead posess factual knowledge. Quite a conundrum, how the hell do you deal with it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Alright, lay one on me that doesn't ultimately come down to morallity.

Do a search for 'abortion' with the author 'cyclowizard.' You should find a couple. Read the link in my sig if you want some factual information. It's not complete, but it's likely stuff you've never heard before. School has been sucking up my time like crazy, unfortunately, so I have had precious little time to work on it.

All I was able to find that didn't have a moral or religous basis was the argument that we need to assign rights to the fetus. Personally, I think that is far to open a debate for us to start limiting women's rights on.

You obviously didn't read many of the posts or the information in my sig. I'm hardly going to retype everything to placate you.

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
They are. Faith precludes evidence, and evidence is the basis of logic. In fact, if you were to ever witness a miracle you would instanteneously become faithless because you no longer held a belief but instead posess factual knowledge. Quite a conundrum, how the hell do you deal with it?

If you believe this is the case, I highly suggest reading up on Einstein's thoughts on the existence of God. He had some very interesting things to say, though he was rather undecisive. Socrates also discussed a God (rather than many). In fact, I'm not aware of any great thinker or scientist who was an atheist. Feel free to point one or more out if you know of any.

Point is, logic does not necessarily exist outside the realm of faith or vice versa. You may get this idea from talking to religious sheep who believe what is presented to them at face value without examining it further. However, I have had religious discussions with Hindus, Jews, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, Catholics. The one thing that all of them agreed on is that your faith is meaningless unless or until you have questioned it, delved deeper into its true meaning, tried to figure out what it all means, or why you believe as you do. The answer to these riddles is not really important - it's the journey that is involved. Similarly, observance of a miracle reinforces faith rather than mitigating it. This is similar to a scientific experiment in that the observing of a single data point cannot determine the entire truth surrounding the phenomenon. The primary difference is that in science, your goal is to produce conditions that will cause only one possible outcome. Miracles are entirely random and typically cannot be repeated by causing the exact string of events to occur in the same procedure that you would think 'induced' the event in the first place.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Abraxas

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Abraxas
Alright, lay one on me that doesn't ultimately come down to morallity.

Do a search for 'abortion' with the author 'cyclowizard.' You should find a couple. Read the link in my sig if you want some factual information. It's not complete, but it's likely stuff you've never heard before. School has been sucking up my time like crazy, unfortunately, so I have had precious little time to work on it.

All I was able to find that didn't have a moral or religous basis was the argument that we need to assign rights to the fetus. Personally, I think that is far to open a debate for us to start limiting women's rights on.

You obviously didn't read many of the posts or the information in my sig. I'm hardly going to retype everything to placate you.

Originally posted by: jjzelinski
They are. Faith precludes evidence, and evidence is the basis of logic. In fact, if you were to ever witness a miracle you would instanteneously become faithless because you no longer held a belief but instead posess factual knowledge. Quite a conundrum, how the hell do you deal with it?

If you believe this is the case, I highly suggest reading up on Einstein's thoughts on the existence of God. He had some very interesting things to say, though he was rather undecisive. Socrates also discussed a God (rather than many). In fact, I'm not aware of any great thinker or scientist who was an atheist. Feel free to point one or more out if you know of any.

Point is, logic does not necessarily exist outside the realm of faith or vice versa. You may get this idea from talking to religious sheep who believe what is presented to them at face value without examining it further. However, I have had religious discussions with Hindus, Jews, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, Catholics. The one thing that all of them agreed on is that your faith is meaningless unless or until you have questioned it, delved deeper into its true meaning, tried to figure out what it all means, or why you believe as you do. The answer to these riddles is not really important - it's the journey that is involved. Similarly, observance of a miracle reinforces faith rather than mitigating it. This is similar to a scientific experiment in that the observing of a single data point cannot determine the entire truth surrounding the phenomenon. The primary difference is that in science, your goal is to produce conditions that will cause only one possible outcome. Miracles are entirely random and typically cannot be repeated by causing the exact string of events to occur in the same procedure that you would think 'induced' the event in the first place.

Well written. I'd like to jump on faith a smidgeon more though.

For Faith to be significant, to me at least, it is to posess it regardless of circumstance. In fact, according to the definition of faith, being a synonym of belief, once Faith is justified through confirmation is ceases to exist; like I said, it becomes knowledge. Never has a miracle been scientifically proven, it can't, and in accordance to what I understand about your religion, it shouldn't be considering it would undermine the very foundation of Christianity. Really, how significant would faith be if it were as easy as replying to this message, or doing any sort of observable and definitively provable activites?

I do appreciate your willingness to parse and ponder your beliefs though, it seems that is a virtue lost unto most Christians I know. What's interesting is that I actually appreciate and agree with what I understand to be the teachings of Christ, I just don't see it practiced correctly by those who would weild at as an instrument to force and coerce obediance as if it were the law of Islam.

Personally I'm all for recognizing Christianity in a historical context in our Gorvernment, but I see the lines of separation between church and state being deliberately blurred by evangelical Christians trying to wrestle control of this nation. I see that as wrong for the Christian faith and wrong for society. That is why I can objectively understand (not being a Catholic could in this case allow me to be objective) Kerry's position on abortion, or any other potential intrusion of Religion on government or (vise versa.)

 

[Abraxas]

CW: I read everything that came up through October 7 IIRC was the cutoff on the posts that came up with the terms you gave me.

And I did in fact read the link in your sig. That once again came down to morallity and fetal rights.

Tell you what, since you are asserting that your posts are easy to find on the topic, why don't you just c&p one over here? I gave it a shot and didn't see I so I am asking that you spell it out for me. What reason that is neither based in religion or morallity is there to outlaw abortions?

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
CW: I read everything that came up through October 7 IIRC was the cutoff on the posts that came up with the terms you gave me.

And I did in fact read the link in your sig. That once again came down to morallity and fetal rights.

Tell you what, since you are asserting that your posts are easy to find on the topic, why don't you just c&p one over here? I gave it a shot and didn't see I so I am asking that you spell it out for me. What reason that is neither based in religion or morallity is there to outlaw abortions?

We could try consistency in the law. How many states do we have where if you kill a pregnant woman, you're charged with two murders, for the mother and the fetus?

 

[Abraxas]

I don't know but that could be equally solvable by removing the laws you speak of from those states instead intorducing new ones. Why should we pick one over the other?

 

[Mayax]

Originally posted by: Abraxas
I don't know but that could be equally solvable by removing the laws you speak of from those states instead intorducing new ones. Why should we pick one over the other?

Why? It's inconsistency in the law. Is it murder or is it not? Pick one and be done with it. I love double standards as much as the next guy but I sure as hell don't like it in my laws. We supposedly got rid of that crap when we booted the King's men out of the land.

 

[Abraxas]

But my question is why should we make the consistent by adding new laws outlawing abortion and making killing a pregnant woman a double murder to every state that doesn't have them instead fo simply revoking the laws making it a double murder in the states that do?