timberlandko wrote:DrewDad wrote:Timber & Yitwail,
I understand your disgust at the abdication of personal responsibility. However, personal responsibility is not the core issue in abortion rights.
Only because those responsible for seeing to that bit of moral and ethical necessity abdicated their responsibilities in the matter.
By which one can assume you refer to the Supreme Court of the United States?
I abhor willful carelesness too, but don't want to set up a tribunal to decide who is what shade of guilty. If the fetus is not a viable person for the careful, it is not viable for the careless.
edgar, i'm not railing against anything. as to roe vs. wade, legalization doesn't change the morality of an act. here's a flip-side to a woman's right to choose: should a physician have the right to choose not to perform an abortion that is not medically required, and is a consequence of carelessness?
snood wrote:revel wrote:If they had an elective bible class in a public school, then to be fair, they should include all the religions as well; otherwise you would be promoting one religion over another.
Just for the sake of argument -
if you only teach English, are you promoting the English language over all others?
Though the US doesn't have an official language, English is the language used for legislation, regulations, executive orders, treaties, federal court rulings, and all other official pronouncements. I don't see a similar special status for Christianity.
Yitwail
I don't think a doctor should have to perform what amounts to an elective procedure if he is not so inclined.
But I still don't want to see a tribunal that will assign shades of guilt.
Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite and I came to a compromise about the pledge of allegiance and I had no problem with that at all. But, the compromise he offered was something that satisfied us both.
Do you remember what that compromise was? :wink:
Timber,
A few pages back you posted a marvelous explanation of how you feel about irresponsible abortions. I applaud you. Yes, that is it! I realize there will probably always be abortions. I know all abortions cannot be stopped. And, I do believe I can understand abortion in some instances.
It is the irresponsible ones that I am so against. I may not agree with you on a lot of particular issues, but I think you hit this one right on the head.
Mesquite,
I don't remember exactly what words we agreed upon, but I do remember that you were willing to understand how I felt that because I have had something in my life for so long I might not want to give it up, and yet, you were willing to work with me to find something we could both accept. And since you and I have such differing views on things, I felt it was beneficial to both of us.
I realize there are those that believe God never should have been there in the first place. I understand that. And, you appear to be one that feels that way. But still, you were willing to understand my side, as well as your side, in coming to a compromise.
Whether it should have ever been there is not the issue anymore. The issue is now, should it be there now and if it shouldn't how do we change it to satisfy the majority?
"satisfy the majority" I think is a serious error in understanding our national law. We do not live in a democracy, it is not majority rules. We are a nation of law intended to protect and provide a defense for "rights" that do not harm others, be they a minority or majority.
I thought the rule was "majority rule, minority rights". Meaning the majority gets to have their way provided they do not infringe on the rights of the minority. Therefore, desiring laws that remove such rights on the basis that it is what the majority wants is inherently un-American.
When we vote, don't we count the votes? Isn't that how we decide who is president? Don't we all have our say?
Are you trying to tell me that it's not true that if even people lobby for and vote for a particular issue it won't be passed by the majority? You mean to tell me we really don't have a say in this? Who gets to decide these things then?
You mean all this time I have been casting my vote it has meant nothing?
Certain principles are not subject to a vote. Separation of church and state is one of them.
It is silly to divide abortion rights, so that we decide, This abortion is wrong, because the lady was not responsible enough to meet my personal criterion, but This other abortion is okay, because the lady at least made an effort to avoid pregnancy. Horse turds.
mesquite wrote:Momma Angel wrote:Mesquite and I came to a compromise about the pledge of allegiance and I had no problem with that at all. But, the compromise he offered was something that satisfied us both.
Do you remember what that compromise was? :wink:
The compromise MommaAngel and Mesquite arrived at, back in September, was to remove the "under God" in "one nation under God", but also not to have it say, for example, "under no God", but instead to revert to the original wording: "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all".
MA said, "sounds good to me. I can certainly live with that."
Link
Thank you, Nimh. I appreciate you finding that. Is it an okay compromise with you?
Fine with me! Taking "under god" out - works for me.
Somehow, though, I have this creeping suspicion that, if that would really happen, it would be touted as the latest "attack on Christianity" on the part of those who "hate God", and want to take everything religious out of society...
nimh,
I am sure you are right in that suspicion. And, I also believe they are right. I am sure there are those that would tout that. I am sure there are those that won't. I am sure there are others with the same suspicions, just as I am sure there are others that don't have the same suspicions.
Momma Angel wrote:When we vote, don't we count the votes? Isn't that how we decide who is president? Don't we all have our say?
Are you trying to tell me that it's not true that if even people lobby for and vote for a particular issue it won't be passed by the majority? You mean to tell me we really don't have a say in this? Who gets to decide these things then?
You mean all this time I have been casting my vote it has meant nothing?
We vote to choose leaders, but there is still that thing called the constitution. Those leaders cannot pass legislation that violates it. Hence, minority rights. The constitution and the judiciary are supposed to be there to protect those minority rights.
Momma Angel wrote:When we vote, don't we count the votes? Isn't that how we decide who is president? Don't we all have our say?
Are you trying to tell me that it's not true that if even people lobby for and vote for a particular issue it won't be passed by the majority? You mean to tell me we really don't have a say in this? Who gets to decide these things then?
You mean all this time I have been casting my vote it has meant nothing?
What if a majority in the country wanted to bring back slavery? We wouldn't do that because it discriminates against whoever would be enslaved. So it does not always follow that just because a majority wants something, then we should do it. There is no room for compromise there.
Having an elective class without representing the other religions or even atheism's side, would not be fair to those other religions or atheist. This would have the effect of promoting one religion or (non religion) over another on the government's expense who are supposed to represent everyone. The room for compromise here would be to have an interfaith elective course which would cover all sides.
FreeDuck wrote: We vote to choose leaders, but there is still that thing called the constitution. Those leaders cannot pass legislation that violates it. Hence, minority rights. The constitution and the judiciary are supposed to be there to protect those minority rights.
Which specific measure Momma Angel is lobbying for do you find unconstitutional?
Any peace gained through the coherance of vocal diatribe is good and worthy dialect for it's time.
