ehbeth,
That is an extremely rascist statement you quoted.
Are you in agreement with it,or did you quote it for shock value?
Mystery writes:
Quote:parados,you just made a completely illogical statement.
You said..."It would have been FASTER to have the legislation flown to him if speed was the issue of greatest importance."
That is not true,and its illogical.
Are you saying a plane flies faster going east to west then it does going west to east?
My mistake. I thought the legislation was passed in house Sunday 2am. It was actually passed Monday.
Thank you, Parados, for your thoughtful response regarding available resources and having to make choices.
Mysterman, your argument about outlawing everything is a strawman and as such does not require a response.
I definitely agree on the need for cost/benefit considerations. Fire, boiled water, electricity, and even automobiles have saved lives, and increased quality life in spite of the dangers to which they expose us.
But many in the "culture of life" have not espoused the idea that cost/benefit should be considered. I've heard folks say that no effort should be spared to save an innocent life.
And I still have not seen anyone seriously discuss the apparent contradiction inherent in supporting capital punishment while opposing abortion on the basis of "protecting life."
I will state my objections to capital punishment, even at the risk of hijacking the topic:
1) It costs more to execute a convicted criminal than it does to imprison them for life without parole. (Because of automatic appeals, etc.) (I will admit that I do not have a source for this. Can anyone support or refute this assertion?)
2) Capital punishment is applied unequally. (Low socio-economic status, race, mental capacity all play a part.)
3) The delays inherent in capital punishment make it an ineffective deterrent. (IMO)
4) The harshest punishments in our criminal system are meted out to those who protest their innocence the most; to me this raises the possibility that innocent people are being executed. (Our criminal system rewards those who cooperate with the police and prosecution.)
Possible benefits of capital punishment:
1) No risk of criminal escaping, being freed, etc. after sentence is carried out.
2) Threat of capital punishment may assist in convincing accused criminals to cooperate with their prosecution.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:owl wrote:George Bush is simply using the Schiavo case as a means to bolster his sagging approval rating. What he is doing is despicable.
So says "owl!" Undoubtedly, "owl" has an inside track to the political machinations of the White House...
hah! ya don't need a weatherman to know the wind blows, finn.
mysteryman wrote:ehbeth,
That is an extremely rascist statement you quoted.
Are you in agreement with it,or did you quote it for shock value?
I quoted it to show one group's perception of the president's recent statements and actions.
Given what I know about America, and Canada, and Australia, I suspect that there may be some truth to his statement.
I believe that there are still people who value white lives above others.
I believe that the "Culture of Life" is a political game, one hand of which has just been played very poorly by the Bush family.
If the statement shocked you, well, I'm sure you're learning to cope with living in a country where other citizens feel they are discriminated against.
I support President Bush on CULTURE OF LIFE!
Send this to your local paper or media outlet:
Quote:Dear Pinko Reporter:
President Bush asked me to tell you how DISGUSTED us mainstream ultra-evangelicals are with your SICKENING disrespect for human life! He and the Pope are RIGHT about how condom use is immoral interference with life, but plugging drooling zombies into smoothie machines is A-OK. Because even if Terri Schiavo's brain was the size of a marshmallow Peep, her eyes were OPEN, and that's PROOF she was THINKING - just like when RONALD REAGAN had NO MEMORY of a criminal conspiracy to sell arms to evildoers. As for ABORTION - the lives of pea-sized womb boogers are WAY more sacred than dumb girls who practically BEG for incestuous rape by dressing like tramps. Besides, everyone knows that parasitic tadpole people deserve PROTECTION - at least until they're born and start begging for pork barrel handouts like education and healthcare, or get convicted by all-white juries for being total retarded minors. So stop QUESTIONING the President's CULTURE OF LIFE, otherwise foreigners think it's OK to be uppity when He wants to bomb Arabiac babies and grandmas who are guilty of terrorism-by-proximity!
Sheesh! Read a poster already:
http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/choose-life.asp
The "culture of life", "the sanctity of life", call it what you will, it makes no difference. There is no regard for human life because society is mired in contradictions - contradictions it dares not question or acknowledge exist. This whole Terri Shiavo fiasco is indicative of a societal stagnation in terms of being human. I found it rather odd that the day Congress attended to Shiavo's case, was also the two year mark of when America invaded Iraq on false premises. While protests, and vigils took place nationally and internationally, the politicians were ever more busy badgering baseball players, and using the Shiavo case as a political ploy, yet no mention of Bush Jr's venture into Iraq.
Politicians (and political systems) do not value life. Those that identify themselves with political systems, and institutions, and those that think in accordance with political systems, do not value life. The reason is that it is a life-denying system that does not allow one to engage in critical thinking and rationality. Contradictions must be ignored if one is to maintain the belief in the political system. So how does this tie in to the "culture of life" or the "sanctity of life"?
While politicians act like they supposedly care for the life of Terri Schiavo, they are busy ending life in Iraq, both for Iraqis and American soldiers because of their willingness to lie, and not question the premises of the war. The public who is divided between "democrat" and "republican" engage in the same short-sighted thinking. Democrats supposedly value life yet they find it okay to destroy the lives of the unborn. Republicans supposedly care for Schiavo yet support America's bloody imperial escapades that stamp out life abroad. This goes hand in hand with the support of the State. We criminalize individuals for murder, yet we okay the State to engage in the same behavior. We criminalize individuals for stealing, yet it is perfectly okay for the State to do this in the form of taxation. But such contradictions are never questioned and will go on unquestioned, but yet these same people will speak of the "sanctity" or "culture" of life.
interesting post, Anonymouse. thanks.
and welcome to the funhouse.
I must take issue with equating taxation with theft....
Taxation is basically a fee paid in return for services (roads, police protection, courts, military, etc.).
Furthermore, taxpayers have the ability to regulate the amount of taxation....
DrewDad wrote:I must take issue with equating taxation with theft....
Taxation is basically a fee paid in return for services (roads, police protection, courts, military, etc.).
Furthermore, taxpayers have the ability to regulate the amount of taxation....
What if I don't want to pay taxes for government services? Case closed.
Anonymouse wrote:DrewDad wrote:I must take issue with equating taxation with theft....
Taxation is basically a fee paid in return for services (roads, police protection, courts, military, etc.).
Furthermore, taxpayers have the ability to regulate the amount of taxation....
What if I don't want to pay taxes for government services? Case closed.
Um... not quite. It is part of the social contract. If you don't want to pay taxes, then by all means lobby for your position, run for elected office, write letters to the editor, partake in non-violent protest, etc.
However, you may believe what you wish to believe. I do not intend to argue this point with you further.
Is the "Culture of Life" a culture of hypocrisy?
Quote:Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.
The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.
The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.
The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.
The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.
Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.
Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.
Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.
"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.
"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.
Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.
"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.
I guess it depends on who's life is at stake.
Dookiestix wrote:http://www.pandagon.net/mtarchives/004824.html
"I have also noticed that two values that BushCo likes to fling around are "life" and "freedom", but I have also noticed that the two are opposite values in their rhetoric. You can have freedom or life, but not both. They are pretty consistent in this viewpoint, and if they evoke freedom, you can be sure they are covering up for someone's death, and if they evoke "life", you can be sure they are trying to take away your freedoms."
Amanda Marcotte of Mousewords
Now that's and interesting take....
This is a funny thread.
Everybody is a hypocritical. People on the left don't mind abortions because it is a "womans choice" but hate war because people die, then turn around and want to "allow" Terri to die. Righties are the opposite and equally hypocritical.
Well, this leftie believes in personal responsibility.
And I didn't oppose the war on the basis that people would get killed.
Painting with a wide brush is sure to splash paint where it doesn't belong.
DrewDad wrote:Well, this leftie believes in personal responsibility.
Great.... does that make you pro-choice or pro-life?
DrewDad wrote:And I didn't oppose the war on the basis that people would get killed.
That may be, but isn't the dying that happens during wars really what everybody is against?
DrewDad wrote:Painting with a wide brush is sure to splash paint where it doesn't belong.
What have you been doing?
jpinMilwaukee wrote:DrewDad wrote:Well, this leftie believes in personal responsibility.
Great.... does that make you pro-choice or pro-life?
I'm in favor of a woman having control over her own body.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:DrewDad wrote:And I didn't oppose the war on the basis that people would get killed.
That may be, but isn't the dying that happens during wars really what everybody is against?
Since I am part of "everybody," then the answer to your question is "no."
Wars can be fought for the legitimate interests of nation-states. I simply do not believe that the reasons presented to the American public prior to the war were sufficient.
jpinMilwaukee wrote:DrewDad wrote:Painting with a wide brush is sure to splash paint where it doesn't belong.
What have you been doing?
Please note that the title of the thread is a question. I have been asking
questions.
Furthermore, I have stated a number of my beliefs and conclusions in several posts. Would you care to actually address any of the specifics?
Quote:What if I don't want to pay taxes for government services? Case closed.
By living where you are you accept the social concept of paying taxes.
You are perfectly free to move to a country that won't tax you. Good luck. If you fail to move to such a place then yes, the case is closed. You have agreed to pay taxes.
