Brainfade Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 It is more of a self comforting line of argument to somehow equate the extremist right with the left. Fox has done it brilliantly playing the siege mentality against "mainstream" media. No sir, there is no equivalent left equivalent to right nut wing which has now put "contraception" on the ballot. Yes, in this day and age. Even in India, there are no arguments over these redundant issues. I frankly dont have any stake in this. But I enjoy the theatre. In fact, republicans have traditionally been good for us. But right now, as Bill Maher put it, the left is at the centre and right is in the mental hospital. If what I see on TV is the yardstick for an average electorate, then I think Obama probably is over qualified for the job. For the sake of this argument, let's try sticking to abortion and viewing it against a non-religious backdrop (as a a pro-life atheist biology teacher who has no interest in watching Fox news or listening to Sean Hannity's rants, it is easy for me to take this objective view; I am asking that you step out of the Bill Maher "I-just-gave-a-million-bucks-to-Obama" POV and give it a try). Do you not think that President Obama's position on partial-birth-abortions and born-alive infants is extreme? Again, let's separate this issue from religion and other issues. As for contraception, my understanding is that President Obama stirred that pot first by announcing that non-profits run by Catholic churches must offer group insurance plans to cover contraception expenses for their employees even if it goes against their beliefs. To his credit, he laid out a perfect trap to steer the conversation to social issues, and the Repubs walked right into it. Let's keep it impersonal and clean.
yoda Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 Guys like Dick Santorum don't believe half of what they say. They say it cause that is the only way to get the right wing nutters' votes. Dick Chaney's daughter is a lesbian and he wholeheartedly accepts her choice, but when comes to the same choice for others he will acted all "conservative". These guys can and will say anything to get votes.
cricket_usa Posted February 26, 2012 Posted February 26, 2012 These guys are playing it for the Primary Voters, most of the time its the voters in the extreme end of the spectrum vote in the Primaries. They'll tone it down when its time for the general election to attract the centerist and the independent voters. Hope in his second term, Obama will be more forceful with the Good for nothing Congress. He need to let this stupid Bush era tax cuts expire, bring in single payer option back in the healthcare mandate, cut the defence spending and bring back troops back from Germany and cut subsidies to oil companies.
Brainfade Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Since we are discussing abortion issues on this thread, here is an interesting article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not actual persons and do not have a moral right to life? The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born. The journal's editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society? The article, entitled After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?? was written by two of Prof Savulescu's former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. They argued: The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual. Rather than being actual persons, newborns were potential persons? They explained: Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a person in the sense of subject of a moral right to life? Ÿe take ÃÑerson to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her. As such they argued it was Ã…Ãot possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense? The authors therefore concluded that ÅØhat we call ÃÂfter-birth abortion (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled? They also argued that parents should be able to have the baby killed if it turned out to be disabled without their knowing before birth, for example citing that Ã…Ãnly the 64 per cent of DownÃÔ syndrome cases in Europe are diagnosed by prenatal testing. Once such children were born there was Ã…Ão choice for the parents but to keep the child? they wrote. ŵo bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. However, they did not argue that some baby killings were more justifiable than others their fundamental point was that, morally, there was no difference to abortion as already practised. They preferred to use the phrase ÅÂfter-birth abortion rather than ÅÊnfanticide to ÅÆmphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus? Both Minerva and Giubilini know Prof Savulescu through Oxford. Minerva was a research associate at the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics until last June, when she moved to the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at Melbourne University. Giubilini, a former visiting student at Cambridge University, gave a talk in January at the Oxford Martin School where Prof Savulescu is also a director titled 'What is the problem with euthanasia?' He too has gone on to Melbourne, although to the cityÃÔ Monash University. Prof Savulescu worked at both univerisities before moving to Oxford in 2002. Defending the decision to publish in a British Medical Journal blog, Prof Savulescu, said that arguments in favour of killing newborns were Ã…Ãargely not new? What Minerva and Giubilini did was apply these arguments ÅÊn consideration of maternal and family interests? While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: ŵhe goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises. Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: ŵhis Ã…Ã…ebate has been an example of ÅØitch ethics - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in. He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal. Dr Trevor Stammers, director of medical ethics at St Mary's University College, said: "If a mother does smother her child with a blanket, we say 'it's doesn't matter, she can get another one,' is that what we want to happen? "What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new." Referring to the term "after-birth abortion", Dr Stammers added: "This is just verbal manipulation that is not philosophy. I might refer to abortion henceforth as antenatal infanticide."
yoda Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Once the baby is delivered, there is nothing to abort, hence using the term abortion for the above scenario is absurd at best.
Brainfade Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Once the baby is delivered' date=' there is nothing to abort, hence using the term abortion for the above scenario is absurd at best.[/quote'] Semantics aside, does the just-born child have any more/less person-hood than the just-yet-to-be-born fetus? That's the question they are asking, and as Oxford ethicists, concluded that it does not.
yoda Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Semantics aside' date=' does the just-born child have any more/less person-hood than the just-yet-to-be-born fetus? That's the question they are asking, and as Oxford ethicists, concluded that it does not.[/quote'] Ofc it does, just born child is outside of someone else body, that's the biggest difference. As long something is in my stomach, it belongs to me, unless I stole it. :winky: The fact that your birth certificate is what is used to decide that you are US citizen indicates that you get rights as a citizen only on and after that date. Like George Carlin says, if the unborn is to be considered like any other person, why not include it in the census?
Brainfade Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Ofc it does, just born child is outside of someone else body, that's the biggest difference. As long something is in my stomach, it belongs to me, unless I stole it. :winky: Just prior to delivery, it has the same body components and physical capabilities as it does when it is born. It is "in your body," but it is "not your body." If it is not a person on one side of the birth canal, it is not a person on the other side immediately after birth. What is your position on the "born-alive infants protection act" that protects all born-alive infants from being killed, even if they were products of an unsuccessful abortion? And I am sorry, I refuse to get my opinions from a comedian - brilliantly funny as he is. Maybe you should consider the opinion of the Oxford ethicists who are experts in the field - according to their approach, one should reach a certain age before being granted person-hood (BC, citizenship, SSN etc.).
punjabi_khota Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Experts in ethics to guide you and give ethical advice ? What next,experts on moral science to guide us whats moral...oh wait, thats going on for ever Please tell me I can't fap twice a day, ala Santorum
Brainfade Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Experts in ethics to guide you and give ethical advice ? What next,experts on moral science to guide us whats moral...oh wait, thats going on for ever Please tell me I can't fap twice a day, ala Santorum Man you sound like the neighborhood redneck ... don't need no stankin' clamatologicist to say nothin' bout no stankin' clamate changing. My pastor said it ain't so. So, who do you think came up with ethical practices in medicine? George Carlin or Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert?
Lurker Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 So' date=' who do you think came up with ethical practices in medicine? George Carlin or Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert?[/quote'] Carlin = Overrated Maher = Has moments but becoming less entertaining by the day. Colbert = Has a lively program that makes you laugh, at the end of which you cant remember a thing. Like them all but gosh are these some of the best humorous names out there?? :hmmm:
Brainfade Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Carlin = Overrated Maher = Has moments but becoming less entertaining by the day. Colbert = Has a lively program that makes you laugh, at the end of which you cant remember a thing. Like them all but gosh are these some of the best humorous names out there?? :hmmm: Just more signs that you are growing old.:--D
Lurker Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Just more signs that you are growing old.:--D Yeah, as if you needed me to show more of those
punjabi_khota Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Man you sound like the neighborhood redneck ... don't need no stankin' clamatologicist to say nothin' bout no stankin' clamate changing. My pastor said it ain't so. So, who do you think came up with ethical practices in medicine? George Carlin or Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert? You trying to claim ethics = science by any chance ? Ethics is a far more a grey area, and I am as sceptical of 'ethics researchers' as I am of 'financial scientists'. The whole area is totally personal, and everyone's ethical standards are different, unlike the gravity they experience or global warming they are facing. The point is, you can't take ethics research on face value, be it from Oxford or Nigeria.
Brainfade Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 You trying to claim ethics = science by any chance ? Ethics is a far more a grey area, and I am as sceptical of 'ethics researchers' as I am of 'financial scientists'. The whole area is totally personal, and everyone's ethical standards are different, unlike the gravity they experience or global warming they are facing. The point is, you can't take ethics research on face value, be it from Oxford or Nigeria. Ethics is a grey area - agreed. But it is not to be confused with comedy. If you simply accepted that everyone's ethical standards are different, there will be anarchy. Moral, ethical and legal considerations, especially those that involve life-and-death, need thoughtful, critical review by intelligent people. I do not agree with the Oxford ethicists, but I will read their writings thoughtfully rather than dismiss them as hacks while accepting a comedian's views on the subject. In any case, there is a strong scientific case for a pro-life position, and I have made it here ad nauseum.
Texy Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 The Jesus train has been derailed folks...all aboard The Mormon Express Santorum DROPS out .....Mitt '$250 mil' Romney is all but confirmed to clinch GOP nomination
punjabi_khota Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 :bye: :bye: Mr. I_have_sex_only_for_producing_children Man I am a little disappointed. If this **** had won, it would have been sooo easy for Obama. Now, he has to actually give a shyte about the election. :((
Clarke Posted April 10, 2012 Posted April 10, 2012 Romney did indicate Santorum isn't a bad idea for the VP ticket, although Paul Ryan is considered more likely.
Recommended Posts