Ben Carson has one of the best arguments RE abortion...

[aikido7]

Ben Carson makes a good point in his book RE abortion and the woman having all rights to do as she chooses, the child having NONE.

I am paraphrasing what he said but soemthing to the effect that just b/c the baby lives in her womb, thereby conferring on her a form of "ownership"-- for lack of a better word-- that does not mean she has all power over that child's life

(This is said to those who do not honor LIFE itself... or put LIFE after some other rght in their hierarchy of values, eg: "choice," [the woman's choice, of course])

Carson says that just owning a dog does not give you the right to torture and kill it

(how much more so a human being created in God's image)



"Whatever you do to the least of My brethren, you do unto Me"




Jesus said





+

Again, you must be aware that there are many who believe you are not talking about "a child" until it is born and draws its first breath.

People adopt the beliefs that work for them. Both sides. And both views have their own evidence as "proof."

Some Christians see it as murder and other Christians believe that--like God's creation of Adam--one is brought to life only by the activity of breathing.

As long as women and men are condemned to live on the earth, I am afraid that abortion will never stop. Too many women actually believe they are sometimes at the end of their rope, facing uncertainty, misery, poverty and being abandoned. Abortion becomes a sad, tragic decision but I think it will unfortunately always be with us.

When I first heard about abortion the pregnant woman Sherry Finkbine traveled to Sweden to get a legal abortion. She was an American woman who had taken a drug called Thalidomide and there was an alarming instance of deformed babies being born from women who took the drug. Most of them were born without arms or legs and were cursed with having "flippers" instead.

She was afraid her baby would be like that and when it was aborted it had the usual defects from the drug.

The drug is still on the market in some places today:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23418102

 

[Town Heretic]

You're missing my point.

If a human life is so precious, even before it's being defined by autonomous thoughts and actions, then why aren't all human beings DESERVING of all the essentials necessary to live and define that human life?

I thought I answered on that point where the rubber meets the road, too often, in complaints aimed at the right.

But to answer more broadly, who is arguing against that?

Why all the animosity toward the concept of "entitlement"?

I'm pretty sure I answered that one.

Why all the resentment against providing every human being on this planet with a basic education, basic health care, basic security and justice, an opportunity to earn a living, and the right to live freely and to pursue their own bliss?

It's a fundamental division on the role of government. The right would say it's not the place of government to provide most of that but that if the market economy is left to run mostly without interference people will find themselves in a position to have all of that. And those who can't deserve compassion and charity.

The answer to this question is that we are all too afraid that we won't get or keep these things for ourselves, and so we're willing to deny them to others. We call it "free enterprise" as we disdain sharing, and we call sharing "communism" as we spit out the word like it was a foul curse.

It happens. I think of it more as a misguided intention that completely fails to understand human nature and motivation. Socialism is closer to a working model, but I think we can do better with what we have if we do a more intelligent job of regulating and put the same sort of cap on corporate profit/greed, the out of control disparity between worker and CEO, by way of, that so many cry for on recovery for egregious malpractice and the like.

We show little respect for human life among the living, so why should we pay it so much respect while still unborn?

Your metric for what demonstrates respect differs from many and not necessarily to their detriment. It's a fundamental, contextual difference in political and economic philosophy.

You may not like the question, or the overtones it generates, but it is born in the sad truth of things. Children all over the world are suffering and dying, daily. Where is all the outrage for them?

I'm not a big fan of outrage, but I am a huge fan of the incredible outpouring of charitable works aimed at ending world hunger and the role we play as individuals and collectives in that war.

 

[aikido7]

get real. You don't resort to murder to avoid someone possibly having a "hard" life..

but then i guess u dont have a problem with murder...

CREEPY!



___

Kiddo, you've got to give other humans in your life some credit. It is a conflict and there are some who do not see a fetus or a zygote as a human being yet. And others--if they are consistent--are against taking life with an abortion, a capital punishment act, an act of war or an act of murder or genocide.

Each side has consistent and strongly-held beliefs. We have to acknowledge the differences and allow people of dignity and humanity to hold different positions.

This does not mean not speaking out on an issue. Just do it with kindness and maturity and respect for our fellow humans.

 

[quip]

I'd say that's more the liberal rhetorical stereotype but as with most stereotypes it fails in the particular. I'd bet that you could survey most of the right wingers here and they'd be fine with helping people in need get on their feet.

Some to most? Though not without proviso e.g. http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4371455&postcount=37

I'm sure the notion of charity is popular....as long as it exists less a burden and more the moral dictate.

 

[PureX]

I thought I answered on that point where the rubber meets the road, too often, in complaints aimed at the right.

How is that an answer to anything? It's just a counter-accusation.

But to answer more broadly, who is arguing against that?

Mostly the "Christian right" that you seem so keen to excuse and defend.

I'm pretty sure I answered that one.

No, you made excuses for it. You didn't answer it.

It's a fundamental division on the role of government. The right would say it's not the place of government to provide most of that but that if the market economy is left to run mostly without interference people will find themselves in a position to have all of that. And those who can't deserve compassion and charity.

Well, clearly that is absurd. Because no market at any time in any place in all of human history has ever even attempted to achieve that. It's like saying that if we would just be allowed to pursue our individual greed with abandon, no one will be left in need. It's idiotic! And you figure this somehow explains away and/or excuses the Christian right of it's neglect and disdain for humanity AFTER birth?

It happens. I think of it more as a misguided intention that completely fails to understand human nature and motivation. Socialism is closer to a working model, but I think we can do better with what we have if we do a more intelligent job of regulating and put the same sort of cap on corporate profit/greed, the out of control disparity between worker and CEO, by way of, that so many cry for on recovery for egregious malpractice and the like.

Sorry, I was beating you up prematurely, it seems.

Your metric for what demonstrates respect differs from many and not necessarily to their detriment. It's a fundamental, contextual difference in political and economic philosophy.

No it's not. It's just fear and greed hiding behind ignorance and sophistry. Stop making excuses for it, and for those who hide behind it.

I'm not a big fan of outrage, but I am a huge fan of the incredible outpouring of charitable works aimed at ending world hunger and the role we play as individuals and collectives in that war.

We don't need "charitable works", we need to change the way we structure our human societies so that everyone gets treated like a valued human being. But that means the elites have to humble themselves, and they don't want to do that. And by "elites", I also mean the Christian right who do believe they are morally superior to everyone else. Which is why they think the solution to poverty is "charity", rather than mutual respect.

 

[Town Heretic]

How is that an answer to anything? It's just a counter-accusation.

No, I simply noted that a variation of that, the old "They only care until they're born!" scorn tactic was utilized fairly consistently by the left in attacking the right.

Mostly the "Christian right" that you seem so keen to excuse and defend.

It would make sense that Christians seek to protect the unborn. And it would make sense that those on the right would have a different context and answer than you, and to some extent me and I defend them against what seems to me unreasonable vitriol for exactly the same reason I often defend the left around here.

...no market at any time in any place in all of human history has ever even attempted to achieve that

Markets don't attempt to do more than move goods. The idea is that when markets thrive the people prosper, jobs are plentiful and the standard of living reflects it.

It's like saying that if we would just be allowed to pursue our individual greed with abandon, no one will be left in need. It's idiotic!

It really isn't. Lots of boats rose on the tide of what you'd call greed during the Reagan and Clinton years. Again, I think the recent trend of pirate like profit taking while holding down wages, causing a greater and greater disparity between the workers and management is both bad for the economy and in need of restraint, but that's where the devil and our better angels are often found, in how we manage details.

And you figure this somehow explains away and/or excuses the Christian right of it's neglect and disdain for humanity AFTER birth?

Rather, I don't agree with your characterization and naturally find the conclusion that follows the premise skewed.

Sorry, I was beating you up prematurely, it seems.
No it's not. It's just fear and greed hiding behind ignorance and sophistry. Stop making excuses for it, and for those who hide behind it.

In order, I'm accustomed to it (though usually by the right) and I really don't think you're being fair about the motivation or approach of the right. I'm sure there are some it would accurately represent, but my experience with them is that however obnoxious and pointlessly insulting they can be (and the left too) they're essentially decent human beings (and the left too) with very different ideas about how to handle a common concern.

We don't need "charitable works", we need to change the way we structure our human societies so that everyone gets treated like a valued human being.

That's the fundamental, contextual battle/disagreement between camps. I think the truth is a hybrid.

But that means the elites have to humble themselves, and they don't want to do that. And by "elites", I also mean the Christian right who do believe they are morally superior to everyone else.

I think most people believe they're right. If you believe you're right and a competing notion is wrong you're either going to leave it there or let that bleed over into how you see and characterize that opposition. It would be easy enough to characterize your characterization of the right as superior.

I'm left to conclude that there's a common problem afoot...it's well and good, if you believe you have the solution to a public ill, to compete in the public square of ideas and attempt to see your notion advance, but when you can't do that without blaming or demonizing, when you can't see the general good intention and humanity of the other guy and credit him with the same impulse, mistaken as he might be in posit, well, then you've crossed over the rational Rubicon and passed into the infertile land of the zealot.

It's that zealot I mostly combat around here, left or right. Because he's the worst enemy his own ideas will ever have and often those actual ideas are worth hearing.

Which is why they think the solution to poverty is "charity", rather than mutual respect.

Because charity is in no part a remover of, but is itself a respecter of our human worth and dignity. It is a recognition of that value and a response to it that demonstrates a respect for our inherent worth.

 

[PureX]

No, I simply noted that a variation of that, the old "They only care until they're born!" scorn tactic was utilized fairly consistently by the left in attacking the right.

It's not a "utilized tool of attack". It's a simple observation of gross hypocrisy. We're all hypocrites in one way or another. And this is one of the ways the right tends to do it. Why is it so hard to just admit that?

It would make sense that Christians seek to protect the unborn. And it would make sense that those on the right would have a different context and answer than you, and to some extent me and I defend them against what seems to me unreasonable vitriol for exactly the same reason I often defend the left around here.

I am well aware of your inclination to defend Christians no matter how wrong they are. :chuckle:

Markets don't attempt to do more than move goods. The idea is that when markets thrive the people prosper, jobs are plentiful and the standard of living reflects it.

Except that unfettered greed does not result in robust markets, and robust markets do not "float all boats". So the religious conservative obsession with "unfettered markets" is a wrong-headed delusion on both counts.

It really isn't. Lots of boats rose on the tide of what you'd call greed during the Reagan and Clinton years.

And lots of boats sank.

The real result of Reaganomics was a huge increase in wealth disparity as a very small number a super-rich 'oligarchs' became multi-billionaires while nearly half the U.S. population slid and continues to slide inexorably into working poverty. That is not "floating all boats". That's floating a few boats while sinking many. And the result of all that wealth piling up in the hands of a few unelected and unscrupulous people is that they can now buy legislation, at will. Effectively destroying the democratic process in this country. Welcome to the new age of oligarchy. And that's no joke!

and Again, I think the recent trend of pirate like profit taking while holding down wages, causing a greater and greater disparity between the workers and management is both bad for the economy and in need of restraint, but that's where the devil and our better angels are often found, in how we manage details.

This "devil" is not in the details, it's in the premise. And it's the premise that I'm referring to in this exchange. Religious Christianity is elitist both by it's nature and it's creed, as that elitism shows up in it's support of exploitive, greed-based, "winner-take-all-and-losers-be-damned" free market capitalism.

Rather, I don't agree with your characterization and naturally find the conclusion that follows the premise skewed.

Of course you don't.

In order, I'm accustomed to it (though usually by the right) and I really don't think you're being fair about the motivation or approach of the right. I'm sure there are some it would accurately represent, but my experience with them is that however obnoxious and pointlessly insulting they can be (and the left too) they're essentially decent human beings (and the left too) with very different ideas about how to handle a common concern.

I have no doubt whatever that the same could be said for most German citizens during the nazi era. And yet those essentially decent people carried out. or allowed to be carried out, a campaign of mass murder and mayhem that covered half the globe.

The world is full of well-meaning and decent people who allow their ignorance and bias to enable them to support all manner of atrocities. It has always been that way. And it doesn't get any better by our making excuses for it.

That's the fundamental, contextual battle/disagreement between camps. I think the truth is a hybrid.

Probably.

I'm left to conclude that there's a common problem afoot...it's well and good, if you believe you have the solution to a public ill, to compete in the public square of ideas and attempt to see your notion advance, but when you can't do that without blaming or demonizing, when you can't see the general good intention and humanity of the other guy and credit him with the same impulse, mistaken as he might be in posit, well, then you've crossed over the rational Rubicon and passed into the infertile land of the zealot.

I can see it. The difference between you and me is that you think it's enough. It's not. Sure, we're all good guys deep down. That and a dollar will get us a dollar's worth of coffee. Nothing will change until we face our own BS. And the simple fact is that I can see the BS of the right way better than you or they can. Because I've got the advantage if some distance. So the question is are they/you going to listen and take it to heart? Or are you and they going to keep on making excuses and huffing and puffing in indignation at my daring to accuse?

It's that zealot I mostly combat around here, left or right. Because he's the worst enemy his own ideas will ever have and often those actual ideas are worth hearing.

Sometimes. I mostly don't care who's what, around here. I don't really pay it much attention. All I see are words on a screen. If they express an idea, I respond to the idea with my own. I'm not offended by the words, and I don't write to offend anyone else. The interface, here, is not particularly personal, for me. I can give critique and I can take it. I like it. I think it's healthy and it's good for us because it helps to keep us honest … but only if we'll honestly consider what's being offered, and not just auto-defend our own egos.

Because charity is in no part a remover of, but is itself a respecter of our human worth and dignity. It is a recognition of that value and a response to it that demonstrates a respect for our inherent worth.

Is it? Or is it just a way we absolve ourselves of our complicity in a system that creates 'winners' by creating 'losers'?

 

[Town Heretic]

...We're all hypocrites in one way or another.

I think you can build a box where any essential person becomes something of a hypocrite. By way of, most people would be outraged by the thought of a child going without food somewhere. But most people have any number of non essential comforts that could go toward ending that. Is it that we're not really as compassionate as we tend to see ourselves? Maybe. Until you're one of them we can always do more for them.

And this is one of the ways the right tends to do it. Why is it so hard to just admit that?

I can't admit a thing I don't agree is so...which means what I hear you saying is, "Why is it so hard to just agree with the way I see things?" And the answer is, because I don't see them that way.

I am well aware of your inclination to defend Christians no matter how wrong they are. :chuckle:

That's consistent with your tendency in relation to those who diverge from your world view, but it isn't demonstrably consistent with my practice.

Except that unfettered greed does not result in robust markets, and robust markets do not "float all boats". So the religious conservative obsession with "unfettered markets" is a wrong-headed delusion on both counts. And lots of boats sank.

It's an arguable point and I could counter for the right, but I'm less interested in arguing their points than in defending the nature of many to most of the people who hold them and trying to shake you out of the habit of putting any and everyone who differs with your relativism in a shabby light.

...This "devil" is not in the details, it's in the premise.

I don't agree. I think the distinctions between a pure free market and an intelligently regulated one are important and impactfull.

...Religious Christianity is elitist both by it's nature and it's creed,

Not unless you're stretching elitist to mean exclusive, as in having an exclusive truth in the person of Jesus Christ. Problematically for you, by asserting this claim against the larger claims of the majority you set yourself in an exclusive and superior position.

Christianity's premise is that man is willfully weak and in need of grace. Any man who feels more than grateful for that gift has missed the point of the cross.

as that elitism shows up in it's support of exploitive, greed-based, "winner-take-all-and-losers-be-damned" free market capitalism.

Without agreeing with your characterization, a very large part of Christendom isn't politically to the right, though more are than not. Were the two wedded by necessity then the numbers would reflect it.

I have no doubt whatever that the same could be said for most German citizens during the nazi era.

Listen to yourself. You just compared people who differ with you contextually with Nazis.

And yet those essentially decent people carried out. or allowed to be carried out, a campaign of mass murder and mayhem that covered half the globe.

Anyone who participated in that can't be described as essentially decent. Perhaps at one point, before power could mate their internal corruption with something darker. Racist, hate filled or morally complacent people did and allowed horrific things. Much like those who lynched and raped and mutilated and profited by the slave trade, North and South.

And the beginning of the process of dehumanization that allowed people to justify those acts?

...The difference between you and me is that you think it's enough. It's not. Sure, we're all good guys deep down. That and a dollar will get us a dollar's worth of coffee. Nothing will change until we face our own BS.

But you really mean the people who differ with you have to face it. Surely you don't believe that's what you're advancing. It's the other guy's problem.

And the simple fact is that I can see the BS of the right way better than you or they can.

Yes, you're superior in your insight to those elitists and anyone who can understand them in another light. lain:

Because I've got the advantage if some distance.

You should see the humor in that. The right can say that about you. I could say that given the rhetoric from either camp I don't see either of you with a more than biased grasp of the other, mostly.

So the question is are they/you going to listen and take it to heart?

Who can take to heart a thing they don't believe? Who would want to?

Or are you and they going to keep on making excuses and huffing and puffing in indignation at my daring to accuse?

Or I'm going to keep meeting you with reason and counsel, haven't done anything that is fairly couched as huffing and puffing, aren't indignant, just disappointed by how utterly of a piece zealots are, in any stripe.

Sometimes. I mostly don't care who's what, around here. I don't really pay it much attention.

Your entire post speaks to something else.

All I see are words on a screen. If they express an idea, I respond to the idea with my own. I'm not offended by the words, and I don't write to offend anyone else.

The Nazi comparison was a dead giveaway.

The interface, here, is not particularly personal, for me.

I don't find that credible, though I do believe you believe it.

Is it?

I believe so. Giving of yourself to help someone in need speaks to empathy and value.

Or is it just a way we absolve ourselves of our complicity in a system that creates 'winners' by creating 'losers'?

Like I said, unless you're among them you're pointing a finger at yourself.

 

[PureX]

I think the distinctions between a pure free market and an intelligently regulated one are important and impact full.

But to get to the latter, one has to let go of their obsession with the former. That's what I've been trying to point out.

Not unless you're stretching elitist to mean exclusive, as in having an exclusive truth in the person of Jesus Christ.

Sadly, what this too often equates to isn't just exclusivity, but superiority. "Believe on Jesus or suffer eternal damnation!" It's the ideology of winners and loser, ordained and sanctioned by the God of an elitist religion. So is it really any surprise that these Christians approve of an economic system that does the same?

Problematically for you, by asserting this claim against the larger claims of the majority you set yourself in an exclusive and superior position.

I'm immune to this sort of "turn the table" tactic, because I know I'm not innocent, and I also know that doesn't matter to the point at hand.

Christianity's premise is that man is willfully weak and in need of grace. Any man who feels more than grateful for that gift has missed the point of the cross.

A great many Christians miss the "point of the cross", and of forgiveness, and of turning the other cheek, and of a whole lot of things you and I think Jesus taught. Why is that? Was Jesus that bad of a teacher? Or has the religion created in his name been promoting the wrong ideas?

Without agreeing with your characterization, a very large part of Christendom isn't politically to the right, though more are than not. Were the two wedded by necessity then the numbers would reflect it.

But those Christians aren't the subject of this conversation.

Listen to yourself. You just compared people who differ with you contextually with Nazis.

No, I didn't. I pointed out that nice people are often complicit in atrocious behaviors. Being nice, and/or being a Christian, does not make one immune from being complicit in atrocious behavior. Even the most cursory look at history will bear this out.

Anyone who participated in that can't be described as essentially decent.

You really love this "no true Scotsman" defense. But of course it only really works for you because you want it to. It doesn't work for me because I know there is no perfect Christian. And according to the "no true Scotsman" defense only a perfect Christian is a true Christian. Therefor, there are no Christians according to that logic. Or, in the case of reality, there are lots of Christians, and they are all guilty of sin, of error, and of being complicit in the atrocities of the world, just as I've pointed out.

Perhaps at one point, before power could mate their internal corruption with something darker. Racist, hate filled or morally complacent people did and allowed horrific things. Much like those who lynched and raped and mutilated and profited by the slave trade, North and South.

Yep, they were Christians, too. And now days, as we watch our savage economy drive millions of Americans into poverty and debt while it feeds the greed of multi-billionaires, the Christians are shouting their support for an even more "free market". And for even less aid to those being driven into poverty. And for even stronger punishments for those who are being driven to the despair of addiction and crime just to survive the day.

There either are no Christians in America, or there are a whole lot of Christians who are very complicit in the atrocities of our political, economic, and justicial system.

And the beginning of the process of dehumanization that allowed people to justify those acts?

"Believe on Jesus or suffer eternal damnation!"

Yes, you're superior in your insight to those elitists and anyone who can understand them in another light.

No, I can simply see them in a way that they cannot (and will not) see themselves. And in a way that you cannot or will not see them, either, apparently. It doesn't make me "superior". It doesn't make me think I'm superior. I couldn't care less about being superior. I don't believe in that kind of Christianity.

The right can say that about you.

Anyone can say lots of things about me. And some of them will probably be true. But that's not really relevant to the point at hand. I don't have to be perfect or innocent to be right about what I see going on around me.

 

[bybee]

But to get to the latter, one has to let go of their obsession with the former. That's what I've been trying to point out.
Sadly, what this too often equates to isn't just exclusivity, but superiority. "Believe on Jesus or suffer eternal damnation!" It's the ideology of winners and loser, ordained and sanctioned by the God of an elitist religion. So is it really any surprise that these Christians approve of an economic system that does the same?
I'm immune to this sort of "turn the table" tactic, because I know I'm not innocent, and I also know that doesn't matter to the point at hand.
A great many Christians miss the "point of the cross", and of forgiveness, and of turning the other cheek, and of a whole lot of things you and I think Jesus taught. Why is that? Was Jesus that bad of a teacher? Or has the religion created in his name been promoting the wrong ideas?
But those Christians aren't the subject of this conversation.
No, I didn't. I pointed out that nice people are often complicit in atrocious behaviors. Being nice, and/or being a Christian, does not make one immune from being complicit in atrocious behavior. Even the most cursory look at history will bear this out.
You really love this "no true Scotsman" defense. But of course it only really works for you because you want it to. It doesn't work for me because I know there is no perfect Christian. And according to the "no true Scotsman" defense only a perfect Christian is a true Christian. Therefor, there are no Christians according to that logic. Or, in the case of reality, there are lots of Christians, and they are all guilty of sin, of error, and of being complicit in the atrocities of the world, just as I've pointed out.
Yep, they were Christians, too. And now days, as we watch our savage economy drive millions of Americans into poverty and debt while it feeds the greed of multi-billionaires, the Christians are shouting their support for an even more "free market". And for even less aid to those being driven into poverty. And for even stronger punishments for those who are being driven to the despair of addiction and crime just to survive the day.

There either are no Christians in America, or there are a whole lot of Christians who are very complicit in the atrocities of our political, economic, and justicial system.
"Believe on Jesus or suffer eternal damnation!"
No, I can simply see them in a way that they cannot (and will not) see themselves. And in a way that you cannot or will not see them, either, apparently. It doesn't make me "superior". It doesn't make me think I'm superior. I couldn't care less about being superior. I don't believe in that kind of Christianity.
Anyone can say lots of things about me. And some of them will probably be true. But that's not really relevant to the point at hand. I don't have to be perfect or innocent to be right about what I see going on around me.

Your inferiority complex makes you dislike everyone.

 

[Town Heretic]

Sadly, what this too often equates to isn't just exclusivity, but superiority. "Believe on Jesus or suffer eternal damnation!" It's the ideology of winners and loser, ordained and sanctioned by the God of an elitist religion. So is it really any surprise that these Christians approve of an economic system that does the same?

If anyone confuses the gift of grace with a merit system the problem isn't the belief system but their approach to it.

I wrote: by asserting this claim [elitism] against the larger claims of the majority you set yourself in an exclusive and superior position.

I'm immune to this sort of "turn the table" tactic, because I know I'm not innocent, and I also know that doesn't matter to the point at hand.

That wouldn't make you immune, only a hypocrite and that would relieve you of the authority of your objection.

A great many Christians miss the "point of the cross", and of forgiveness, and of turning the other cheek, and of a whole lot of things you and I think Jesus taught. Why is that? Was Jesus that bad of a teacher? Or has the religion created in his name been promoting the wrong ideas?

Or maybe it's my old burning field problem. Seventy seven percent of the U.S. population lay claim to the Christian religion. There are over three hundred million people in the United States. So around two hundred and thirty million people and you've likely met or seen how many of those?

re: on comparing Christians to Nazis

No, I didn't.

Let me go back then...

I have no doubt whatever that the same could be said for most German citizens during the nazi era.

Okay, a slight qualification, you compared them to facilitators of the Nazis. So not the actual butchers, but the people who fed them, housed them, did their dry cleaning and generally made their existence possible.

It's a thin distinction.

I pointed out that nice people are often complicit in atrocious behaviors.

Okay, I disagree. I think that what you do is ultimately make whatever "nice" is valueless.

You really love this "no true Scotsman" defense.

You can't actually line up what I'm saying with that.

A decent human being doesn't facilitate genocide. Why? because by definition a "decent" human being is one who is "conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior."

The Nazi state didn't do that, which is why no one attempting to hide from responsibility for atrocities behind the facade of legality within the German system had any luck doing it.

...now days, as we watch our savage economy drive millions of Americans into poverty and debt while it feeds the greed of multi-billionaires, the Christians are shouting their support for an even more "free market". And for even less aid to those being driven into poverty. And for even stronger punishments for those who are being driven to the despair of addiction and crime just to survive the day.

When the nation is prosperous, as it has been in fairly recent times, the population is largely happy and there is a plenty that floats a great many of those boats you're considering with enough surplus to help those who through no fault of their own don't find a measure of prosperity.

I've noted a few problems I find in the system, but the important part of our disagreement here is your seeming assertion that because the system has serious flaws the response to it should be abandonment. Better to fix what needs fixing in a system that has produced a standard of living among adherents to its principles unrivaled in the history of compacts.

There either are no Christians in America, or there are a whole lot of Christians who are very complicit in the atrocities of our political, economic, and justicial system.

Or there's another opinion or opinions that don't share your judgment on either our system or the solution to the problems all of us can agree exist in it to one extent or another.

"Believe on Jesus or suffer eternal damnation!"

I'd say reconcile yourself to God or be separate. But my point was that the starting point of dehumanization is typically the sort of hostility you're evidencing toward the majority (when you think to separate them) of Christians. To you they're complicit in moral evil.

And what do we do about those who are complicit in moral evil and working a harm against the decent, suffering populace?

Better to advance the good you see and the way toward it.

No, I can simply see them in a way that they cannot (and will not) see themselves.

A racist could say that to a minority member.

And in a way that you cannot or will not see them, either, apparently.

A way I find mostly distorted and wrong headed, so sure.

It doesn't make me "superior". It doesn't make me think I'm superior. I couldn't care less about being superior.

If you didn't find your position superior you couldn't judge from it and you wouldn't advance its conclusions as anything other than another way to see a thing.

Anyone can say lots of things about me.

Likely, but the point is that the literal, same charge is logically as applicable resting on what you've rested it on.

And some of them will probably be true. But that's not really relevant to the point at hand. I don't have to be perfect or innocent to be right about what I see going on around me.

So, "Yes, I may be but that's not important, what is important is the next guy and the new one we should be ripping in him".

Or, everyone wants to change the world one person at a time and that person is always someone else.

 

[republicanchick]

I dunno. God apparently does though.

What's your point? Can't you tell a canine embryo from a human one?

God believes in murdering the people he creates.

Geeze... why do i bother?


++

 

[republicanchick]

Let's be honest, capitalism is designed to "kill the disadvantaged", and conservative Christians love it. They can't deprive the disadvantaged fast enough! They vote for republicans to do just exactly that.

STUPID!

I have always been more/less disadvantaged but never more so than when the Ds are in office...

Reality Check!!

Moron City



____

 

[PureX]

Your inferiority complex makes you dislike everyone.

I don't dislike anyone. Sometimes I dislike their ideals, and sometimes their behaviors, but I don't dislike them. That's my point. Being nice, being Christian, being religious, none of these things preclude anyone from being blind, stupid, ignorant, selfish, or from being not only complicit, but even supportive of true evil. It happens all the time.

 

[The Horn]

Pro-choicers aren't opposed to adoption . If a baby is born and placed with good parents , this is very good, but the problem is that it's just uimpossible for every unwanted child to be adopted quickly . We alread y have who knows how many thousands of children, some now teenagers, waiting to be adopted . This is a very bad situation .
You have to realize that if the US government were to make abortion illegal tomorow , or within the next few months, this would do absolutely NOTHING to stop women from having abortions . Dangerous, unsanitary back-alley abortionists who were not competent , trained medical personnel would instantly spring up everywhere, and women would risk their lives with them . There would be no way for the police to shut them down; they would all be extremely clandestine .
The poorest women would just use things like coat hangers to try to abort themselves. And die , or nearly die . It wouldn't be pretty .
It would be just like the days of Prohibition . How effective was prohibition in stopping people from drinking ?

 

[Town Heretic]

Pro-choicers aren't opposed to adoption . If a baby is born and placed with good parents , this is very good, but the problem is that it's just uimpossible for every unwanted child to be adopted quickly . We alread y have who knows how many thousands of children, some now teenagers, waiting to be adopted . This is a very bad situation .

Ask one of them if they'd rather be shot in the back of the head. Get back to us.

You have to realize that if the US government were to make abortion illegal tomorow , or within the next few months, this would do absolutely NOTHING to stop women from having abortions .

Sure it would. It wouldn't stop all of them, but it would seriously impact the numbers. Legalizing anything, making it easier and safe will raise the numbers and making it harder and unsafe will diminish them. Nothing will stop it altogether in this life.

It would be just like the days of Prohibition . How effective was prohibition in stopping people from drinking ?

A lot more than you appear to think, which is why so many celebrated its end.

 

[The Horn]

In fact, all prohibition did was enable organzied crime to make a fortune . And waste a huge amount of money in the futile attempt to stop bootlegging . Since Colorado made marijuana legal, the murder rate in Denver has been cut in healf !
Making abortion illegal again might stop SOME women from having abortions , but it would still be rampant, and many,many more women would die . Every time a country has made abortion illegal after it had been legal, the abortion rate has RISEN markedly . As well as the number of women dying .
There are no laws which are as impossible to enforce as laws against abortion .

 

[quip]

Ask one of them if they'd rather be shot in the back of the head. Get back to us.

Honestly?

 

[Town Heretic]

In fact, all prohibition did was enable organzied crime to make a fortune

No, though it did that. And it's a poor parallel, comparing an addictive intoxicant with abortion.

Making abortion illegal again might stop SOME women from having abortions , but it would still be rampant, and many,many more women would die .

I don't think you can make the rational case for it when you look at realistic estimates of abortion pre Roe and how the numbers went after Roe.

Every time a country has made abortion illegal after it had been legal, the abortion rate has RISEN markedly . As well as the number of women dying .

Not logically possible and it undermines your credibility on the point.

There are no laws which are as impossible to enforce as laws against abortion .

Also untrue, though degree of difficulty doesn't have anything to do with whether or not a law is worth having.

 

[Rusha]

Pro-choicers aren't opposed to adoption . If a baby is born and placed with good parents , this is very good, but the problem is that it's just uimpossible for every unwanted child to be adopted quickly . We alread y have who knows how many thousands of children, some now teenagers, waiting to be adopted . This is a very bad situation .

Hmmm, might not be adopted/waiting to be adopted VS life snuffed out prior to birth.

One offers a chance and hope. One does not.