« Islam: The Religion Of Ghouls | Main | The Knucklehead of the Day award »

Now What?

Sometimes it seems God wants to punish the United States of America. He did so in 1976, when we had to choose between the less-than-thrilling Gerald Ford and the folksy Jimmy Carter. We chose poorly. In 1988, we had to choose between Reagan's tagalong sidekick "Poppy" Bush, and Michael "Tank Guy" Dukakis. We chose the better man, but it did not always feel like it. And here we are in 2008, with an array of candidates who either demonstrate poor qualification for the job, or poor communication of just why we should trust them with the helm of the nation. Things are less than optimal, no matter who we choose, yet the stakes and consequences of our choice are high indeed.

Look, Fred Thompson may not have been what we'd hope he'd be; the man certainly made some strategic errors, but at least he seemed to have a sense for what Conservatives were hoping for. He was a real National Security conservative in the Reagan mold, unlike Huckabee and Paul. He was a Social conservative as well, unlike Giuliani and McCain. Thompson's ideas carried the sense that he not only understood the issues, but had listened to regular people, unlike Keyes and Romney. In short, Thompson had everything - everything but the primary win in South Carolina. And so, Fred has left the stage, and whatever promise remained of a Reaganite Administration left with him.

It's going to offend liberals, but neither Obama nor Clinton nor Edwards is really serious about National Security, and neither would appoint justices who would defer to the common man's right to be left alone by tax-happy governments and the creep of uber-programs. Handing over the White House to a Democrat is to lower our defenses and spit on the taxpayer. Therefore, we are left to consider what of the remaining Republican field can be accepted. Conservatives unanimously understand that we must support the GOP candidate this fall, because the alternative is completely unacceptable. Yet there is no one in the field who commands our respect and admiration in all places. Giuliani and McCain never wavered in the mission against Terrorists, but neither is trusted on their domestic plate of plans. Romney and Huckabee say they stand for Conservative values, but Romney flipped on some key issues pretty recently, and Huckabee's record defies his pretense. Whomever would carry the Republican nomination this fall, has a lot of work to do, not only to win the nomination but to prove bonafides not presently visible.

God save the United States of America. It looks like no one else is up to it.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/27263.

Comments (102)

Now? Now we, and the count... (Below threshold)
Skip:

Now? Now we, and the country, will suffer. And the suffering will continue until the leadership of at least one of the two parties is purged of corruption. The leadership has failed us, and now we pay the penalty, and will do so until they are replaced.

Sorry, but there are no silver linings here.

My sentiments exactly. The... (Below threshold)

My sentiments exactly. The term "lesser leaders" comes to mind.

DJ,Dr. John McArth... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

DJ,

Dr. John McArthur, the noted Bible teacher and pastor, said in his sermon in Colorado Springs on the National Day of Prayer 2007 that he believes without a doubt that God has abandoned America. He backed that up with the Scriptures from Romans 1:26 to end of chapter. And that chapter does confirm that when God abandons a nation, that nation will fall into sexual immorality and that homosexuality will become accepted.

I accept the above to be true. But what can we do but to continue to resist as long as we can. You and I have children. I think our best bet is to support Rudy, as Hillary and Barack are communists (not "like communists", but ACTUAL communists) or worse.

Following is the link the Dr. McArthur's sermon:

http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=1/14/2008

And another thing, George W... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

And another thing, George W. Bush is a real cowboy. He owns a ranch in Texas.

And I do ask you to reconsi... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

And I do ask you to reconsider Rudy, as I believe that he will be more conservative than he has been before. I am sure that he is NOT a true evangelical Christian, but at this point we need to choose those that will most closely follow what is right (and be able to win the general election).

I cannot vote for McCain. H... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I cannot vote for McCain. He will compromise of SCOTUS. He will push amnesty for illegals. I am not for spending foolishly, but I will take that for the short term for safety and security. Besides, the illegals are costing the taxpayers.

On GOD abandoning the USA. I believe that also not because we sin, but because we are now embracing and protecting sin. Abortion and the like. ww

Whoever is elected shouldn'... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Whoever is elected shouldn't lie and lie and lie about the reasons upon which foreign policy decisions are made. In this electronic age they're quickly exposed and open themselves up to ridicule and they lose support.

The leadership of this once... (Below threshold)
kevino:

The leadership of this once great country has not failed us. In a Republic such as ours, we get the government that we deserve. If this country had any moral, ethical, and legal standards, this country would never have elected President Clinton, would never have allowed gangsters to infest the White House, and would have insisted that Bill Clinton resign when his perjury and obstruction of justice became known. We didn't do it because the economy was doing well. We rewarded criminal behavior and abuse of power for personal gain.

The next President will be Senator Clinton. If this country had any moral, ethical, and legal standards, she would not be a United States Senator, and her candidacy for President would be an impossibility.

We did this to ourselves. If God saves this country from ourselves, we don't deserve it.

"We did this to ourselves."... (Below threshold)
914:

"We did this to ourselves."

I did not vote for either Clinton or approve of the so called Justices that threw God out of the public schools and ruled that killing the unborn children of the creator was legal.

This is where the cancer began.

In a Republic such as ou... (Below threshold)
Clay:

In a Republic such as ours,

It is sad to state that the fact is, we are a Republic in name only. Our Constitution has been so distorted that it is no longer recognizable. It is no longer used to guarantee individual rights according to it's original intent. It is now prostituted such that it used to guarantee collective rights or, worse yet, the rights of the government from which the citizenry was to be protected. We are no longer the land of the free - free speech, free religion, free economy - but the land of the suppressed, regulated, and taxed. We indeed get the government we deserve.

It does not make sense for ... (Below threshold)
Alan Orfi:

It does not make sense for you to blame God for "punishing" our country when our own "conservatives" failed to support the two most God-fearing men in the Republican race. Issues aside, I think we know that Thompson or Huckabee would be prayerful Christian leaders. The electorate have largely rejected them.

Alan, Sorry that I ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Alan,
Sorry that I do have real problems with Huckabee wrt the truth. He seems to take both sides of an issue. His current claims do not seem to match his policies in Arkansas. I expect a christian leader, eg. a pastor, at least to be truthful about his convictions. I look at the man's actions and they don't seem to match with what he proclaims.

We need to take back the ma... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

We need to take back the mass media, or least half of it. I still believe the media, more than anything else, ended Thompson's run.

If your kids are intelligent, moral, honest, and understand the fallacy of leftism/communism encourage them to become journalists.

God hasn't abandoned us, but Satan runs the broadcast networks, most "news"papers and magazines, and Hollywood. And that is why we're in the shape we're in.

Wait a minute. We know</... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Wait a minute. We know that Huckabee would be a prayerful Christian leader? We know nothing of the kind. He certainly doesn't represent my religion or a conservative vision of government, as demonstrated by his record.

As for the "now what?" that... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

As for the "now what?" that's pretty easy for me, as my state has already had it's primary.

(1) Pray for a brokered convention that selects none of the current front runners.

and

(2) In November, vote for whomever the Republican Party nominates.

If I still had a primary vote in front of me I'm not sure what I would do. Probably still vote for Fred, but more likely hold my nose and vote for Romney as he's probably the best of the rest, IMHO.

To all of those interested:... (Below threshold)
ed davis:

To all of those interested:

Please read and consider the following essay regarding the topic of America and what the author argues is a major reason for what could be her downfall:

http://hallindsey.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=237&Itemid=56

It can also be found here:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59754

As I have said many times, ... (Below threshold)
Jim:

As I have said many times, If the country is going to hell in a hand-basket, then I would like the handle to be in a Democrat's hand.
I just hope that the republicans can get their act together and become conservatives again. And I hope that doesn't take very long.

Ed, not to be mean but Hal ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Ed, not to be mean but Hal Lindsey is as far off his gourd as Ron Paul is from his.

Lindsey, forgetting the Scriptural prohibition, forecast the end of the world and Christ's return in 1988. You may have noticed that prediction was a bit off. Since then, Hal has become more and more, well, unstable.

Are you saying that primari... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Are you saying that primaries are just an exercise in futility because God will pick the winners?

Exactly how does that work? Did he force people to vote for Ford, Carter, Bush, Dukakis, et al by some weird manipulation of our wills?

And if God picked the candidates for us in the past elections, did he pick the winners, too?

I do not know Hal Lindsey v... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

I do not know Hal Lindsey very well. If he did predict in a precise manner that 1988 was the year of Christ's return, that of course is a no-no. The following seems to imply that he may have generally implied that within a generation of 1948 was going to be Christ's return (which may very well be the wrong interpretation, but would possibly be a more acceptable generalization which turns out to be incorrect):

(from Wikipedia)
Hal Lindsey stated that the end days would be before the generation that sees the establishment of Israel in 1948 would pass away, as shown in Matthew 24:34: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." A 'Generation' is sometimes interpreted as 30 or 40 years, but "shall not pass" can refer to the deaths of the last members of the generation of 1948, which will yet be many years from now.

I'm not trying to defend Lindsey. I trust DJ is knowledgeable about these matters and he may very well be kind of kooky in his beliefs. I'm just saying that he may have made a general statement and not an actual year prediction.

Why would I note even that? Well, because the article cited by Ed is credible. We have to defend the Jews and be the most pro-Israel nation on the planet (for our own good). In fact, we have to be more pro-Israel than Israel itself.

The Thunder Run has linked ... (Below threshold)

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the - Web Reconnaissance for 01/23/2008 A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

Oh! So is Hal Lindsey the ... (Below threshold)
Diana:

Oh! So is Hal Lindsey the guy who wrote, "88 reasons Christ will return in 1988?" Boy that was way off, wasn't it? I remember people talking about that a lot.

The guy who wrote that seem... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

The guy who wrote that seems to be a different guy:

(from Wiki)
Edgar C. Whisenant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Edgar C. Whisenant is a Bible student who predicted the Rapture would occur in 1988, sometime between Sept. 11 and Sept. 13. He published two books about this: 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Could Be in 1988 and On Borrowed Time. Eventually, 300,000 copies of 88 Reasons were mailed free of charge to ministers across America, and 4.5 million copies were sold in bookstores and elsewhere.

Hal Lindsey is a false teac... (Below threshold)

Hal Lindsey is a false teacher/false prophet and should have been run out of respectable Christian circles a long time ago.

I respect John MacArthur but his newspaper eschatology is disturbing. Predicting the end times based on current events is a fool's errand.

... and voting for a Democr... (Below threshold)

... and voting for a Democrat is to piss on the constitution. That's the choice you get folks. Make it wisely.

The decline of American civ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

The decline of American civilization is somehow related to gay people being allowed to coexist with (nearly) equal rights? Democrats are communists? As in, they're going to do away with democracy once elected?

nehemiah, your beliefs ought to be tolerated, but certainly not respected. Ten years ago, the only place I heard craziness like this was from wild-eyed street pastors who of course I never paid attention to. Web 2.0 has been a real eye-opener.

Big Mo,Predicting ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Big Mo,

Predicting a specific date or year of the end times is certainly a fool's errand (and unbiblical), agreed.

But the scriptures themselves say to pay attention to the signs of the times (from the KJV):

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

With all due respect, at wh... (Below threshold)

With all due respect, at what point did God personally endorse America? It's always been my understanding that the deeds of individual men are what's on God's mind. And when there are more immoral than good men running anything, that thing goes bad. God didn't have to endorse it or abandon it for it to go either way.

Could that be any more vagu... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Could that be any more vague? How do you think an allusion to a fig tree ought to inform public policy, or even a general conception of the universe from a Christian standpoint? Just because it's in the Bible, doesn't mean it can't be meaningless.

Well put, Oyster. Evangelic... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Well put, Oyster. Evangelical Christian metaphysics seems to run afoul of geography.

And Matthew 's metaphysics ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And Matthew 's metaphysics doesn't deter him from supporting a candidate (Obama) who has been associating with a racist church and has voted against providing medical care for surviving aborted babies. Seems like the religion of liberalsim with its abortion (killing babies) sacrament is a good fit for Matthew.

Liberalism is not a religio... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Liberalism is not a religion. People here have a problem with Islam because of liberal humanist intuitions, you clown. I don't share Obama's religious views. We compromise when we vote, which, by the way, I won't be doing as I'm Canadian. And it's tiring listening to you sing the same boring tune over and over again. Get a life.

"Democrats are communist... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Democrats are communists? As in, they're going to do away with democracy once elected?"

Your statement makes no sense at al, Matthew. What does communism have to do with doing away with democracy?

Maybe that's why it is common for leftists to deny the obvious paralleles between communists and modern American democrats-- they have no clue that communism is just anther form of the same ideology and worldview.

oyster,God has alw... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

oyster,

God has always been concerned about men (individually) and the nation as a whole. He has blessed those that have obeyed Him, and (though patient) has judged those that have not. Sodom, Gomorrah, Nineveh, and Israel are examples.

Remember the 12 spies of Israel when they were sent the 1st time into the promised land? Joshua and Caleb came back with good reports, but they had to wander the desert with the rest of their disobedient nation because as a people they disobeyed (though Joshua and Caleb obeyed personally).

Still you don't have any pr... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Still you don't have any problem supporting a candidate who voted against providing medical care for surviving aborted babies. Whatever metaphysics is guiding you, it doesn't seem to bother your conscience about voting for such a candidate. In essense, you have no qualms about killing surving aborted babies.

You don't even know that liberalism is the religion of the left. More verbal gymnastics. At the same time, you proclaimed that people shouldn't support Romney because of his association with the Mormon church.

Pat Robertson, whom is a pe... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Pat Robertson, whom is a personal messenger of God, was told by God that he is mad at us because of our Homo agenda.

If you want God to love us again you better vote for Huckabee.

PS Rush's anti Huckabee and pro gay loving Romney agenda makes him the anti Christ.

And people like Barncommie ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

And people like Barncommie are all for the dems mainly they hated God and wanted the liberal agenda of "killing babies/not terrorists" big gov.

You cite that stuff as thou... (Below threshold)
matthew:

You cite that stuff as though it happened exactly the way it's written in the Bible, which has been filtered and refiltered through how many different languages? Must be nice to believe in something so resolutely, I guess, but critical thinking is a useful skill you might want to consider acquiring.

P. Bunyan--can a communist state be a democratic state? I'm unaware of any historical examples, but I'm happy for you to inform me to the contrary. There are other salient reasons why social democrats (i.e., everyone to the left of Ron Paul) are dissimilar to communists, but insofar as you prefer to position every single person you speak to as either a communist or a patriot based on which of two shitty, monolithic political parties they would support, I won't bother to try and disabuse you of your intellectual shortcut.

two shitty, monolithic poli... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

two shitty, monolithic political parties they would support
---------------------------------
One party is fully for killing surviving aborted babies. So obviously such a brutal practice is not enough for you to turn away from that party. It says enough about your metaphysics.

matthew,could you ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

matthew,

could you please teach me how to think critically and tell me which specific fact in the Bible has been disproved?

Mormons are nuts. Watch the... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Mormons are nuts. Watch the South Park episode, and tell me how they misrepresent that cult. (They don't.) Their beliefs are not worth taking seriously, and someone who takes those beliefs seriously, is not worth taking seriously. Totally divorced from the realm of plausibility.

As for Obama's religion, I hate it. I don't like religion. I guess I dislike his candidacy less than the others, is all.

By the way, what's with your name? Shouldn't it either be "Love America, Immigrant" or "America-Loving Immigrant"? As it stands, it makes no sense.

"I'm unaware of any hist... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"I'm unaware of any historical examples"

Typical leftist. Clueless. In reality, very rare are historical examples of communist countries that weren't democracies to one extent or another. But I wouldn't expect you to know or understand that. I'm sure the schools in Canada are not unlike American schools in the efforts they expend on keeping people like Matthew informationally retarded.

nehemiah--how about not bel... (Below threshold)
matthew:

nehemiah--how about not believing things that are just plain stupid?

Is it wrong to eat shellfish? Should women cover their hair once they're married? Did "God" really create the world in a week?

Take it all as metaphor, fine. Everyone needs to tell themselves a story in order to make sense of the universe. But it's not true.

Cite one communist country ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Cite one communist country that had free and open elections, Paul. If you can, bravo! If you can't, you're a fucking goof.

"Watch the South Park ep... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Watch the South Park episode, and tell me how they misrepresent that cult."

Matthew, did you watch the last minute of that episode? If so, you totally missed the point. Or were too narrow minded to understand it.

You are very slight right in you mostly factually deviod rant in #29, in that I do tend to group, and prejudge all leftists, and yet you leftists continue to prove the sterotypes I attribute to you. Ironic, no?

So Mormons don't believe th... (Below threshold)
matthew:

So Mormons don't believe that Native Americans have red skin because of a historical foul-up?

Or they do, and they're insane?

"Cite one communist coun... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Cite one communist country that had free and open elections"

The USSR, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela.

Cite one that didn't.

FREE and OPEN elections, Pa... (Below threshold)
matthew:

FREE and OPEN elections, Paul. If you're wondering by whose standards an election can be said to be free and open, how about our own? The only one that meets those criteria is Venezuela, which isn't a communist country. It's socialist. They aren't the same. Venezuela has more in common with the United States in terms of political mechanics than it does with the former USSR.

Gosh, matthew, I'm sorry th... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Gosh, matthew, I'm sorry that I'm so stupid to believe as have C.S. Lewis, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Martin Luther who were all lacking in critical thinking skills.

I think I'm going to start studying your works instead. Which of your books should I start with?

Matthew, For all yo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Matthew,
For all your babbling and distraction, you should look at yourself in mirror. How can you support a candidate who wants to make sure that surviving aborted babies are killed in the most inhumane way? What kind of metaphysics is guiding you? Is that atheism? Is atheist metaphysics would give you no qualm about such a practice?

Don't forget Immanuel Kant ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Don't forget Immanuel Kant and Martin Luther King Jr. (unless you meant to refer to him, and not the dude who had a problem with the jackasses in Rome). But your list doesn't make your point.

Many geniuses are/were Christians. Many Christians deserve to be referred to as "saints", in the secular sense of the word (moral heroes). But how many of them sounded off about the End of Days and the Rapture and all that rubbish? Thinking only of the modern ones among them, how many think/thought the world was created in a week? Or that because the Old Testament says it's wrong to eat shellfish, that shellfish should therefore not be eaten?

There's a difference between Christians and fundamentalist Christians. The former tend to demonstrate a greater capacity for critical thinking.

nehemiah, can you explain t... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

nehemiah, can you explain to me how the Noah story is true? Also, isn't adultery a capital offense in the words of the lord, yet I don't hear of any of you evangelicals demanding a constitutional amendment outlawing adultery?

There's a difference betwee... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

There's a difference between Christians and fundamentalist Christians.
--------------------------------
Just like there is a difference between atheists and fundamentalist atheists. The former tend to demonstrate greater critical thinking ability and at least seems to have a conscience. I think fundamentalist atheist would go to an extreme to support killing surviving aborted babies in the most inhumane way.

I don't support that, LAI. ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

I don't support that, LAI. I don't know anything about it, but based on your description, it sounds pretty unsupportable. Again: politics is about compromise, and were I to vote in your general election, I would vote for Obama in part because he seems to extend his sympathies to people other than fetuses and Christians. You do not.

Once again: what's with your name? Is it a normative statement ("Love America, Immigrant!") or is it self-descriptive ("America-Loving Immigrant!")? Either way you should reword it so that it makes sense. And I'm not trying to be a dick, though I don't care one way or another how you perceive me.

Again: politics is about co... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Again: politics is about compromise, and were I to vote in your general election, I would vote for Obama in part because he seems to extend his sympathies to people other than fetuses and Christians.
-------------------------------------
SO you think killing surviving aborted babies is something you can compromise on. His church doesn't extend sympathies to the Jewish people for example. Is atheism your guiding metaphysics? Just want to know. If so, atheists like you think that killing surviving aborted babies is something you can compromise on. BTW, for all your babbling, the baby survived the abortion and and is out of the womb. Why do still call the baby a fetus? Is that verbal gymnastics?

Nehemiah - I'm not a left-b... (Below threshold)

Nehemiah - I'm not a left-behinder, and don't hold to the Lindsey/LaHaye belief that Matthew 24 refers to the end times. Jesus was refering to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the sacrifical/temple system -- the "end of the age" -- not the end of the world.

Matthew, It's obvi... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Matthew,

It's obvious that you are never going to admit that your "democracy" argument was a strawman. And while we could endlessly debate what constitutes a "free and open" election, I don't think it would be worth the effort.

Instead I'd rather focus on your statement: "Venezuela, which isn't a communist country. It's socialist. They aren't the same."

First, that is equivalent to saying: "A quice in not an apple, its a fruit. They aren't the same."

Communism is simply one form of socialism. Just as a quice is one type of fruit.

The main thing that distinguished communism from other forms of socialism is that in a communist system the government owns everything, while in many other socialist systems the goverment merely controls everything while allowing nominal private ownership. (That also pretty much sums up the modern American democrat party, although I believe if they could get away with what Chavez has, they would.)

Now if you were really paying attention to whats happening in Venezuela, with Chavez trying to nationalize ownership of everything and gradually succeeding, and if you were intellectually honest (which you have yet to demonstrate) you'd have to admit that Venesuela, under Chavez, is well on the way to full blown communism.

Oh, you want to have a conv... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Oh, you want to have a conversation about atheism and morality! Good! Please read Immanuel Kant's Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals and get back to me on why you think externalist morality (i.e. yours) works better than mine. (If it's too hard, and it might be--some German philosophers learn English so that they can study Kant translated into a dumbed-down language, and even then it's awfully opaque--McDowell offers a more modern packaging of the same ideas. His work is available at Amazon.com.) Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics offers some insight here, as well; again, if you prefer reading things written for a contemporary audience, check out Joseph Raz's Value, Respect, and Attachment and Engaging Reason: On the Theory of Value and Action. Start from there, and work your way to Nietzsche, or if you have something against awesome mustaches, go the American route: William James, John Dewey, and the recently deceased Richard Rorty have a lot to say about that which you don't seem to know much about. (I don't blame you--no high school in North America that I'm aware of does a decent job of presenting alternative moral frameworks to the Judao-Christian one.)

I don't support killing babies, for what it's worth. I don't know enough about that issue--give me a link that describes Obama's position on it.

For the third time, what is with your unintelligible "name"? Is it a command, or a description? Or some third sort of utterance, perhaps an expletive or exclamation?

"(I don't blame you--no ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"(I don't blame you--no high school in North America that I'm aware of does a decent job of presenting alternative moral frameworks to the Judao-Christian one.)"

ROTFLMAO at that bit of cluelessness.

So when Chavez loses a refe... (Below threshold)
matthew:

So when Chavez loses a referendum and defers to the will of the people, he's being a communist autocrat who owns everything. Got it.

Communism is a form of socialism, but so is democracy, unless you think roads should be privately owned and maintained. I think you need better venn diagrams of governmental models, Mr. Bunyan. Socialism isn't inherently a bad thing. I like living in a country where poor people can give birth in hospitals for free--do you?

DJ,Hal Lindsey nev... (Below threshold)
ed davis:

DJ,

Hal Lindsey never made such an assertion.

Hal Lindsey isn't a prophet. He doesn't claim to be a prophet. Hal makes sense of parts of the Bible that take a spiritual gift to interpret. I get my information where I can. Any suggestions? It is good to get a few more people's perceptions here in this thread too. Two heads are better than one, no?

A case against that claim that Mr. Lindsey predicted a date for Christ's return (as well as the basic reasoning for not predicting a date) is made very well here:

http://www.omegaletter.com/articles/articles.asp?ArticleID=5955&SearchFor=millerite

Even if Hal Lindsey did, and I repeat: he did not, it certainly doesn't discount the basis of the essay. He simply proves that good things stopped happening in countries when they mustered against Jews. Are all of those occurances mere coincidence?

I am not proselytizing here. The topic of God's Grace & Providence came up. Chuck Norris can lead a horse to water AND make him drink. Not me.

I linked the essay because it is relative and it is historically accurate.

Matthew, Obviously ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Matthew,
Obviously you are bluffing. So I assume that atheism is your guiding metaphysics. I assumed you have studied all those books. In atheist metaphysics, why is it wrong to kill surviving aborted babies? These babies are no better than trees or other animals, right? BTW, are you trying to use my posting name as a way to distract and avoid answering the questions? Can you be honest?

Now are you still going to vote for Obama and support the dem party in general?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/05/hillary-hits-obama-on-abo_n_80013.html
During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents.

Matthew, BTW you ar... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Matthew,
BTW you are claiming that you know English better than I do. So I can give a brownie point for that. So why did you call an aborted baby a fetus when the baby is outside of the womb?

It's wrong to kill babies b... (Below threshold)
matthew:

It's wrong to kill babies because moral agents have inherent moral worth. People have intrinsic/inherent moral worth, and trees do not. Trees are worth caring for only insofar as they serve a purpose. People are special in that respect (and one can make good arguments for counting dolphins and higher primates as "people", in the moral sense, though obviously not in the zoological).

I'm not familiar with that aspect of the debate. Obviously I'm pro-choice, though I think that human children have the right to medical attention regardless of whether or not they were meant to be terminated. Is that all surviving aborted fetuses, or just ones that would not be able to enjoy a life of dignity (i.e. severe brain trauma)? I'll read the article later. Believe it or not, I'm at work and have shit to do.

I'm not going to vote for the Democratic party because I'm a Canadian. I would, though, for the same reason you compromise your principles and vote for Republicans--pick the party that best approximates your ideal one. Right?

I'm asking about your name because it doesn't make sense. Seriously. Change it to "Love America, Immigrant" or "America-Loving Immigrant", depending on what meaning you intend to convey. It's only aesthetic, but it'll add more gravitas to what you have to say.

People have intrinsic/inher... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

People have intrinsic/inherent moral worth, and trees do not.
-------------------------------------
Where does this intrinsic/inherent moral worth come from? Trees and babies are just different "products" of evolution. So evolution gives people intrinsic/inherent moral worth?

I'm not going to vote for the Democratic party because I'm a Canadian. I would, though, for the same reason you compromise your principles and vote for Republicans--pick the party that best approximates your ideal one. Right?
-------------------------------------
OK, so saving surviving aborted babies obviously doesn't seem to be important in your ideal.

Oh, and I'm a 25 year old f... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Oh, and I'm a 25 year old fetus. Who cares? I don't define my position on abortion by whether or not a fetus has yet become a person. I believe it's wholly an issue of whether the woman feels like keeping the child, and that my opinion one way or another is irrelevant (as is everyone else's). Whether it's a baby, or a fetus, is immaterial.

And this is so off-topic that I'd prefer to save it for the next time somebody starts a thread about abortion and the moral status of fetuses and what that can be said to impose on the women who carry them.

I'm not trying to criticize your English skills. My boss is Chinese, smarter than me, and can't write for shit. I'm honestly suggesting you change your name to make it better reflect whatever it is you're trying to say.

"I like living in a coun... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"I like living in a country where poor people can give birth in hospitals for free--do you?"

Yes, I'm glad that here in the United States any person can received the best healthcare in the world, even if they can't pay for it. I'm also glad that you Canadians can send the people here that your system can't handle.

The idea that healthcare is unavailable to anyone in the US is a common leftist lie.

(We do not have a health care crisis in American, we have a health care FINANCING crisis, which not coincidentially started when lawers started advertizing in the 70'snd has balooned to crisis proportions today thanks mostly to John Edwards and his ilk, and Democrat politicians which enable them and block all efforts by the Republicans to get the parasitic litigators under control.)

As for the road system, well, I am o.k. with that being nationalized. That represents about 0.00001% of what socialism's about so yeah, about 0.00001% of socialism is o.k. with me.

Actually the ideals of socialism/communism sound great to me. Sadly they only work in the theoretical. In reality the means which the socialists/communists use to achieve their goals are in direct opposition to human nature and common sense.

For instance, using your road example, while common ownership of the road system is a good and reasonable thing, using government to build and maintain roads is always the least efficient and most expensive way to go. That's why it is more and more common for the government to use private contractors for those functions.

Pretty much everything done by the government will be done in the least efficient and most expensive way. The school systems are another good example of this.

And at the very core, the modern American Democrat Party seeks to achieve "equality" by punishing productivity and rewarding sloth. That principle is at the heart of practically everything the Democrats propose. While, I do think equality is a good thing, I do not think equality due to universal poverty is a good thing and that is historically the ultimate results of all socialist/communist systems.

I prefer the conservative position that equality be available to all through universal opportunity and freedom, but every individual has free choice in what to do with that opportunity and freedom.

Matt, don't try to reason w... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Matt, don't try to reason with lovie. He is an ultra right-wing boat person that was too cowardly to fight the communist in his homeland and was probably taught his beliefs from some whacked-out evangelic missionary.

Logic and facts are wasted on him.

[that's over the line. One more shot like that, Barney, and your vowels will be donated to a more worthy sentence structure - DJD ]

Matthew, You are ri... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Matthew,
You are right about my English. So I will change my posting name as you suggested.

Barncommie, an apologist fo... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Barncommie, an apologist for the communists, cannot contain the liberal ad-hominen sew*age any longer. Again, another example of liberal ad-hominen distraction when running out of args.

Whether it's a baby, or a f... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Whether it's a baby, or a fetus, is immaterial.
------------------------------------
So let 's use baby then. Abortion is killing babies. Hope more people on the left will start using that term.

"surviving aborted fetuses"... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

"surviving aborted fetuses" = babies.

McCain is the same to me as... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

McCain is the same to me as Obama, Clinton and Edwards. He might not have the same goals, but the end result would be exactly the same...

In a week Rudy will suffer ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

In a week Rudy will suffer an embarrassing defeat in FL and will have to drop out. Huck will soon follow (after super Tuesday). That will leave Romney and McCain.

If Romney wins the social conservatives wont vote. If McCain wins the right-wing radio conservatives wont vote.

Either way the Pubs are sunk.

Barney, I'd prefer to stick... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Barney, I'd prefer to stick to ideas rather than inferring things based on someone's ethnicity, thanks.

I'm going to try and be as gratingly conciliatory as humanly possible in order for my arguments, and the person/people I'm arguing with, to get the fairest shake. I didn't think I had a New Year's resolution, but there it is. However, I still say Mormons are nuts. Hehe.

If abortion is killing babies, I guess that's a bullet we'll have to bite, lest we advocate for the imposition of state law within a woman's uterus. And, if abortion IS killing babies (and I'll grant that it is--no sense playing semantics here), what should be the punishment for women who have abortions? Fetuses are babies (or similar enough to them that we might as well grant that at some point, we might as well call them as such, as location within or outside of the uterus is arbitrary in terms of what's going on in the baby's brain); babies are people; killing people is murder; so, charge them with murder. I'm guessing you don't think that's a reasonable position, LAI; why not? Or, if you think that having an abortion should be a felony, how can you support ANY politicians? If Republicans did someday succeed in illegalizing abortion (which they won't), there will be more unwanted babies found in dumpsters; and, there will still be abortions, but they'll be less safe. I think abortion is something you might have to live with.

Mr. Bunyan, I agree with you. We should be free insofar as everyone has an equal opportunity. Unfortunately for color-blind conservativism, people in the United States/Canada/Europe are not born with equal opportunity. So, we adjust for it. And, when you say "sloth", I say you oversimplify, and that welfare cheats (as if they're getting some kind of sweet deal!) are a corollary of a social safety net that is itself a corollary of a society in which people can fail. The alternative, no safety net, is unjust. However, I'm not a communist in that I think wealth should necessarily be leveled down. I agree with John Rawls' principle of "maximin", which states that we ought to permit disparities in material welfare insofar as these disparities actually benefit the worst off among us. A society with no competition, with no opportunity for material success, is not a society in which I want to live, and nor do you. Democrats and Republicans are actually so similar in this regard that, when we consider the outlying alternatives (no state libertarianism/anarchism vs. communist state ownership of everything), it's actually quite funny how much the two "sides" attempt to differentiate themselves from one another. They're more similar than the current political climate would indicate, and differences in jingoistic political vocabulary are frequently misconstrued as insurmountable substantive gaps in policy and worldview. Simply not the case.

Anyway, as per DJ's topic, here's hoping a giant meaty fist doesn't smite anybody for watching Brokeback Mountain tonight. Peace out, ya'll.

Barney,Don't forget ... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Barney,
Don't forget about how screwed up in a race-brawl your party is right now. You've got Hil-dawg making black folk pretty angry with the way she's going after Ubama.

Obama is sitting there like a rock not doing anything or responding in any substantive way, Hillary is attacking and lying like only a Clinton knows how to and Edwards is nipping at both their heels like a little chihuaha. MIA is Kucinich. Maybe he found his UFO ride out of here. Maybe on AlGore's Intarweb. Which uses more electricity and causes more global warming than anything i can think of. Good invention Al.

Matthew, Here is so... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Matthew,
Here is something that we can agree upon I hope. A party that is so extreme in abortion that goes so far as denying medical care for surviving aborted babies doesn't deserve the support of people with good conscience.

The real question is whether you are honestly making a good effort to discourage people from killing babies or you are trying to justify it and defend it at any cost.
What can we do with women who had abortion? Many churches provided them love and support. I wouldn't want to put them in jail, but I wouldn't justify it with dishonest rhetoric like "pro-choice". I guess you agree that we can start with education: showing women/girls that abortion is actually killing babies. Since you are a liberal, you wouldn't mind using goverment money to provide more ultrasound machines so that people can see their babies in the womb. Make it easier for people to open more crisis pregnancy centers to help with pregnancy and adoption. Encourage more abstinence and tell them about the many dangers that abortion can cause. Abstinence education will not be perfect, but it would reduce a lot of abortions.


AT least you are honest about your ideal now. You are for killing babies as long as the mother chooses to do so. Since you are a Canadian, so I can tell you about the dem party here in America. I looked at their actions: they spent a lot of time and effort to save the trees/terrorists. In contrast, they spent a lot of effort to use the laws to allow the most inhumane and extreme abortions. That 's party doesn't deserve the support of critically thinking people in good conscience.

BTW, since you are talking ... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

BTW, since you are talking about the law: let 's say in the case of rape. I would rather kill the rapist and save the baby and put up the baby for adoption. Can we agree on this?

Matthew, I find your commen... (Below threshold)
SPQR:

Matthew, I find your comments about religions to be less a demonstration of your brilliant insights and more a demonstration of bigotry.

Dave, Barncommie is... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Dave,
Barncommie is happy that the Dem party is only at war over race. They are all united in the agenda of "killing babies/not terrorists" big gov. It is not a big deal to liberals like him if a known corrupt white liberal is lying and using race to destroy a black candidate and this is not the first time. Liberals are used to lying and race-baiting in any case. THis is usual procedure for them.

"My boss is Chinese, sma... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"My boss is Chinese, smarter than me, and can't write for shit. I'm honestly suggesting you change your name to make it better reflect whatever it is you're trying to say."

So, if you can't write for shit, matthew, if you changed your name would it reflect better what you're trying to say? Are you trying to say something with your name?

"...kill the rapist and sav... (Below threshold)
matthew:

"...kill the rapist and save the baby..."

Umm, if a friend of mine was impregnated by a rapist, I'd want him to go to jail for a long time, but I don't know what that has to do with whether or not she should bring a rapist's baby to term. In fact, I think that's a case where abortion is clearly justified, especially since a) there was no carelessness on her part, and b) the pregnancy itself could be just as traumatic, but far more prolonged, than the assault itself.

In Canada, our Conservative government would never entertain the idea of criminalizing, or otherwise making unavailable, abortion. The vast majority of people are past talking about that issue. Our attitude is, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. I'm not sure what "defending abortion at any cost" means--is it an inviolable right? Yes. Are inviolable rights sometimes worth violating? Yes, as basically every categorical statement is implied to have an infinite number of ceteris paribus clauses. I personally don't agree with having an abortion in the third trimester, but as a male, I'll never have to make the decision and I don't think it's any of my business. I'd like to minimize the number of situations where people are forced to choose, though. Sociological data that I examined in an undergrad course demonstrated that liberal sex education reduces incidences of unwanted pregnancy. Look at Sweden, the Netherlands, or Norway: people tend to have sex much earlier in life, yet abortions aren't nearly as common as they are in the U.S. Why? Because in good ol' liberal Western Europe, people have a mature conception of sex: it's not "sacred" if you don't want it to be, it carries great risk, and should be properly explained to people at a young age. Does this cause people to have sex at a younger age? Maybe, but so what? If it keeps abortion and HIV/AIDS/herpes/etc. rates low, where's the harm?

You do know that, within the Western world, regions that promote abstinence as the primary method of birth control have higher teen pregnancy rates, right? Birth control pills and the effective deployment of other assorted prophylactics beats willpower any day. Teenagers can't be trusted to keep it in their pants.

SPQR--thanks for contributing! Nothing on TV?

LaMedusa, I'm not trying to say anything with my name. It is my name. However, I (correctly) assumed that LAI was attempting to make a normative statement with his "name", and helped him better articulate it by suggesting other ways of writing it out. That was plainly obvious, but I guess you didn't read the whole conversation. That's alright, because nobody was talking to you.

Matthew, I just gav... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Matthew,
I just gave you an example to see where to apply the law. The common case where people use as an excuse for abortion is rape/incest and danger 's mother life. As a compromise, I am willing to allow abortion in those cases. Just to point out the value system here: if you have to kill someone, would you kill the baby or would you rather kill the rapist? In this case, you are willing to kill the baby to protect the women. Then using the same logic, you should be willing to kill the rapist to protect the other women as well. We should all agree that the person deserved to be killed here is the rapist, not the baby. Even if you have to kill the baby in this case, you have to honestly say that it is with great sadness and reluctance (not the dishonest pro-choice rhetoric that treating the baby as a criminal intruding on the women's body for example).

Outside of these extreme cases, are you still for killing the babies for other reasons? We can be creative with the laws to protect the women if that 's really what you care about. How about making the guys responsible? If you cause an unwanted pregnancy and walk away, then you have to pay child support for example. If the women doesn't want to raise the child, you can force the guy to pay for the adoption fee and the her 9 month of pregnancy. If your motivation is to save the babies, you can come up with reasonable laws to protect the women and the babies. That 's the point. If people are married and have an accident, then they can put up the baby for adoption. If we should streamline the laws to facilitate adoption.

YOu missed the point on abstinence education. You don't use it chiefly as a birth control method. You teach the value of abstinence and the value of having a baby in terms of a long term relationship. It also the safest way to avoid sex-related diseases. But I guess in atheistic metaphysics, people are just animals wired for sex no matter what.

The bottom line is whether you are trying to save as many babies as possible or you are trying to justify the killing of babies (even the inhumane killing of surviving aborted babies). How does your atheistic metaphysics guide you here?

Our attitude is, if you don... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Our attitude is, if you don't like abortion, don't have one... I personally don't agree with having an abortion in the third trimester,
-----------------------------------
Are you saying that you personally don't agree with the third trimester abortion, but you want people to have that option to kill their unborn babies for any reason?

We can take it a little further: if you don't like to kill your handicapped child, then don't do the killing. I personally disagree with that, but I think we should allow people the option to kill their handicapped children.

Posted by matthew | ... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:


Posted by matthew | #83
That's alright, because nobody was talking to you.


I beg to differ. You are talking to everyone participating in this forum. Some do not choose to make themselves part of every conversation; nonetheless you ARE talking to them also. You may be specifically directing your comment in a particular direction, but taking umbrage at a response from some other part of the conversation, perhaps hitherto unknown, seems a bit obtuse for a seemingly erudite person such as yourself.

[b] M [/b]


Is that all surviving abort... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Is that all surviving aborted fetuses, or just ones that would not be able to enjoy a life of dignity (i.e. severe brain trauma)?
-----------------------------------
Forgot to ask you a question about this. Something to think about here. Abortion is meant to kill the baby. So if the baby manages survive with severe damages, then it is justified to deny medical care?

In other words, what you are saying here is that if a baby escape abortion intact, then it should be provided medical care. Otherwise, it should be left dying without medical care? When you complete your study, please let me know whether you are still supporting Obama.


I believe it's wholly an is... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

I believe it's wholly an issue of whether the woman feels like keeping the child, and that my opinion one way or another is irrelevant (as is everyone else's). Whether it's a baby, or a fetus, is immaterial.
------------------------------------
Forgot to ask another question. Again, if a woman doesn't feel like keeping a child (even outside of the womb), then she should be allowed to kill the child (or the baby). Thanks for the confirmation that this absolute right of the women to kill her own child is an important part of the liberal ideal.

LaMedusa, I'm not trying to... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

LaMedusa, I'm not trying to say anything with my name. It is my name. However, I (correctly) assumed that LAI was attempting to make a normative statement with his "name", and helped him better articulate it by suggesting other ways of writing it out.
-------------------------------------
Matthew,
I consider this picking on my posting name a cheap distraction tactic, but I gave you a pass on it. Other people can see it as well. You should be honest enough to admit it and move on. Other more mature people are not bothered by my posting name at all.

Matthew, my friend, while I... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Matthew, my friend, while I've enjoyed reading your incredibly eloquent, well thought out offerings on this thread, just stop banging your head into a brick wall and go enjoy your life. The people who frequent this site really, actually, believe that a guy named Noah put two emus, and two mosquitos, and two dung beetles, and two horses, and two Pomeranians on some incredibly massive ship before the big rains came. You can not, in any way, introduce logic here. If the Holy Bible shall be interpreted word for word, than I hope none of you own a razor and shaving cream, and you have a separate room in your home to sleep in when your wife has her monthlies. I show this site to my friends when they start to get lackadaisical (sp?) about politics in this country and slack off on their Constitutional right to vote, because these weirdos don't.

"That was plainly obviou... (Below threshold)
LaMedusa:

"That was plainly obvious, but I guess you didn't read the whole conversation. That's alright, because nobody was talking to you."

Haha! You don't think that would've been even more comical if you were? LAI was right that he caught you in another distraction tactic. If I weren't reading the whole thing, the pattern wouldn't have been just as "plainly obvious".

Ryan is a perfect example o... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Ryan is a perfect example of liberals' ignorance and lack of logic. Ryan, thanks for confirming that saving babies is weird for liberals and killing babies is natural. That 's why 100% abortion rating (even denying medical care to surviving aborted babies) is something to brag about in the dem party. I guess that is part of the atheistic metaphysics.

Sigh... I wasn't picking on... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Sigh... I wasn't picking on your name. I was suggesting that you present it more precisely, such that you clarify the message you are clearly intending to convey.

As for killing babies, I don't like it. But I will never support and modification of laws that forces a woman to use her uterus for something that she isn't interested in using it for. If someone has six abortions because they're lazy and stupid, I will think lowly of them. You can go ahead and pray that the fetuses/babies go to heaven, if that's your thing. But it's not for you or me to tell her that she *can't* do it anymore.

LaMedusa--the whole abortion discussion can be said to be a "distraction tactic" (what, on the battlefield of ideas?) insofar as LAI brought it up in a topic thread about whether or not God is quite literally punishing the United States for its indiscretions. Abortion is, from the perspective of most readers here, but one of those indiscretions. So let's just acknowledge that abortion sucks, and that it will remain legal barring a theocratic uprising a la The Handmaid's Tale.

Let's talk about other evils in Western society, like child poverty or racial inequality.

Ryan--thanks. Slow day at work yesterday, and my coworkers aren't any fun to argue with.

Sigh... I wasn't picking... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Sigh... I wasn't picking on your name. I was suggesting that you present it more precisely, such that you clarify the message you are clearly intending to convey.
-------------------------------------
What does it have to do with the disussion at hand? That 's clearly a distraction tactic. I am not convey the message "what 's next in the Rep primary" with my posting name.

As for killing babies, I don't like it. But I will never support and modification of laws that forces a woman to use her uterus for something that she isn't interested in using it for.
So the women should be allowed to kill her babies in the third trimester for any reason? Should we modify the law to provide medical care to surviving aborted babies since the woman doesn't intend to use her uterus to have the baby in this case? What is the "inherent/value" of the baby? Where does it come from? Does its value change from inside the womb to outside the womb? YOu have studied atheistic metaphysics and claim to be able to articulate it.

You can go ahead and pray that the fetuses/babies go to heaven, if that's your thing. But it's not for you or me to tell her that she *can't* do it anymore.
Who is talking about the babies going to heaven here? Is this another distraction tactic? In atheistic metaphysics, why does baby have "inherent/intrinsic" value? Did you also say that dolphins have higher value (more inherent/intrinsic moral worth) than human beings? I am intrigued by the inconsistencies by your presentation of atheistic metaphysics so far. Since we are all products of mindless and purposeless evolutionary process, what intrinsic value of human life? Natural selection is the ultimate force and the survival of the fittest is the natural order of things in life. So what 's wrong with Hitler or Stalin killing several millions of people? They are the fittest who survived, right?


LaMedusa--the whole abortion discussion can be said to be a "distraction tactic" (what, on the battlefield of ideas?) insofar as LAI brought it up in a topic thread about whether or not God is quite literally punishing the United States for its indiscretions. Abortion is, from the perspective of most readers here, but one of those indiscretions. So let's just acknowledge that abortion sucks, and that it will remain legal barring a theocratic uprising a la The Handmaid's Tale.
-------------------------------------
The discussion was why you would support Obama given his long association with a racist church and his extreme abortion position in denying medical care to surviving aborted babies. OK, fine, I can give you a brownie point about abortion not immediately germane to this discussion about "what 's next in the Rep primarty". Let 's go back to the discussion about metaphysics since you brought it up. Have you completed your study about Obama 's position yet? How about your atheistic metaphysics (as compared to the evangelical metaphysics that you so gladly demonstrate more bigotry than insight as SPQR pointed out)?
Let me summarize the two questions germance to this discussion here:

(1) Do you think we should change the laws to provide medical care to surviving aborted babies? Given Obama's extreme position on this issue, you will still support him?

(2) In atheistic metaphysics, where does the "inherent/intrinsic moral worth" of babies come from?

Let's talk about other evil... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Let's talk about other evils in Western society, like child poverty or racial inequality.
-------------------------------------
Sure in the context of this race. Why child poverty persists in Washington DC and Detroit for example where the liberal democrats have been in power for a long time? Why the liberal dems are using the race card in the their primary right now? Hey, in atheistic metaphysics, since a handicapped child in poverty doesn't have a dignified life, so it is probably better to kill that child. If the mother cannot carry the burden of caring for a poor handicapped child and doesn't want the child anymore, is it not better to let the mother kill that child. Who are we to interfere with her? It may be also better solution for child poverty. The child can be rid of his/her undignified life. The mother is free of her burden and can pursue other things to get out of poverty. The society doesn't have to spend a lot of money to sustain such a undignified existence.

That seems consistent with your presentation of atheistic metaphysics so far.

1) I don't support denying ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

1) I don't support denying medical care to abortion survivors. I actually know somebody who survived an abortion, and while her relationship with her mother has been pretty awkward (to understate it), it's a good thing she wasn't... I dunno... tossed down a garbage chute? I would like to know what Obama's reasoning is for denying medical care in cases like this. I'm sure it's not sound. Having said that, there are other reasons to prefer his candidacy to the others. I don't think he will make this part of his platform. You know what you should do, though? Not vote for him.

2) Atheistic metaphysics (probably the first time I've described my worldview as such, though I guess it makes sense insofar as you consider it to be totally incongruent with your own Judao-Christian variety) holds human life (all human life--Iraqi, al Qaeda) to bear some intrinsic worth. I'll do my best to try and paraphrase 100 pages of complicated argument here: Value, Respect, and Attachment by Joseph Raz is the clearest explanation of it that I've seen. Basically, were it not for people, things of contingent value (art, nature, games, etc.) would be worthless. So, insofar as anything is valuable, the world requires "valuers" to actualize this value. That people are inherently/intrinsically valuable means only that their value is not contingent upon others valuing them; they are at the top of the value-chain, as it were.

What does that tell us about abortion? Not much. A mature grasp of metaethics (the metaphysics of value and how it ought to inform rational decision making and action) demands that we cede certain things to politics, as there isn't a deductive, necessarily compelling conclusion to be drawn from first principles. All that can be said is, women's rights are inviolable, as is human life. There are competing concerns, and they cash out differently based on one's perspective, or what one holds most dear. I personally don't believe in terminating the life of a handicapped child because it's inconvenient for the parents to raise an "imperfect" person; nor do I believe third trimester abortions are the right thing to do; but at the same time, I cannot assert myself as having the proper standpoint, or moral authority, to advocate for the sort of legislation I think you would support.

As for your earlier remarks about whether we should kill the rapist or kill the fetus, I don't know what that has to do with anything. If you mean that preventing rape is the ideal course of action, obviously you're correct; if you mean that we should kill rapists after they've impregnated women while somehow bullying the victim into carrying her baby to term, then you're mistaken.

(1) So you agree that we sh... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

(1) So you agree that we should change the laws to provide medical care for aborted children then. Yup, I am not going to vote for him in any case. Just using your standard here. You are trying to use the association of Romney with the the Mormon church as a major reason not to vote for him. I am simply surprised that you don't use the same standard with respect to Obama 's association with his racist church. Obama is smart enough to hide his true conviction and action wrt to this policy. That 's the given. He cannot be honest about his actions. Anyway, his 100% abortion record is sth his supporters have brought up to win the support of liberal dems in the dem primary. So this is clearly the platform of the dem party under the "rpo-choice" rhetoric.

(2) I don't claim to know enough about evangelical christian metaphysics. So I didn't join the discussion. You don't seem to know much either (as SPQR mentioned, you demonstrate more bigotry than insight). Again, your arg again means that you do not approve of killing poor handicapped child. But it is up to the society to decide whether to allow parents or the state to kill a child or not. Essentially it boils down to that. OK, looks like we are in agreement that we do not approve of what Stalin and Hitler did wrt the handicapped, but we don't know enough to advocate the laws against those killing.

(3) So, insofar as anything is valuable, the world requires "valuers" to actualize this value. That people are inherently/intrinsically valuable means only that their value is not contingent upon others valuing them; they are at the top of the value-chain, as it were.
This is not consistent. You need valuers to actualize this value. Then the value of human life depends on the existence of the valuers (in this case, other human beings). So logically, there is nothing intrinsic/inherent about moral worth of human life. It depends on the valuer to have any value.

(4) You are right that a proper understanding of metaethics should inform us that we cede something to politics. The usage of the court in Roe-vs-Wade bypassed the political process to impose the liberal version of abortion on the rest of the country tells us about an improper undeerstanding of metaethics. This improper understanding has led to the likes of Stalin/Hitler for example.

(4) I agree with you we shouldn't force a woman to carry the child of a rapist. Just point out to you that in rape, the person who deserved to be killed is the rapist most of all. I would rather promote the value of life and call on people to love and care for a rape victim. I would advocate strong sentence for rapists to protect other women as well. So outside of extreme cases of rape/incest and mother 's life (which we agree upon), what other cases you think we should allow the killing of babies especially in the third trimester as a society?

"Intrinsically valuable" mi... (Below threshold)
matthew:

"Intrinsically valuable" might be better explained as capable of experiencing the value in things; or, valuable in and of itself; or, worthy of protecting independently of how it contributes to the experience of others. Human life and the existence of valuers are one and the same, and neither can be said to depend on the other.

I'm not doing the argument justice, and it's been two and a half years since I finished my thesis, the electronic copy of which was eaten in a hard drive 'splosion.

As for when we should allow third trimester abortions, I think that they should be permitted, legally speaking. However, we don't currently live in a society that encourages women to terminate their pregnancies late into term; nor do many women decide at the last minute to terminate. I think that because of slippery slopes and competing rights and interests (i.e. women's autonomy), that unfortunately a small number of people will continue to have abortions for the wrong reasons past the point where the fetus clearly crosses the threshold of personhood. I don't know how to articulate a law that limits this freedom, though; and any such law would result in the sort of back-alley abortions, or overnight trips to Mexico (or Canada, or Brazil); and it wouldn't really serve the interests of late-term fetuses.

Educate people; invest in support centres for expectant mothers who do not want to keep the child; perhaps even allude to the fact that at some point prior to exiting the uterus, a cluster of cells transforms into sentient life; but I don't see any way to legislate an end to it.

(1) "Intrinsically valua... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

(1) "Intrinsically valuable" might be better explained as capable of experiencing the value in things; or, valuable in and of itself;
You still don't show logically how human life is valuable in and of itself. You claimed to be an atheist and don't like religion. So humans are just a product of random evolution (mindless and purposeless). Value proposition is simply a product of random chemical reactions in your brain. This is a fully material world. I think trying to twist value proposition into your atheistic metaphysics is a fool 's errands. Stalin/Mao/Hitler is a logical conclusion of this worldview. Peter Singer is intellectually honest enough to follow the logically conclusion that some retarded humans are less valuable than other animals. Nothing intrinsic about value of human life.

Again, here is what you wrote
perhaps even allude to the fact that at some point prior to exiting the uterus, a cluster of cells transforms into sentient life;
Nothing intrinsic about the value of human life. It is dependent on the development and the a valuer (the mother in this case maybe).


(2) How about laws that promote adoption especially for people contemplating late term abortion? And have an extensive education program to inform women of the danger of late abortions to their physical and mental health. Have ultrasound technology to show them the babies in their womb. Encourage them to give up their babies for adoption for example.

(3) So in the end, do you agree that we have laws to provide medical care for surviving aborted babies? Or you still don't know enough MORALLY to advocate that kind of laws?

(4) Do you know enough MORALLY to advocate the laws against the killing of handicapped children?

(5) Since you bring up the importance of proper understanding of metaethics, do you agree that Roe-vs-Wade is wrong. Judges are humans and they don't enough morally (as you argue unless you say that judges have superior moral judgement) to impose the liberal vision of abortion (including killing babies in 3rd trimester) on the rest of the country. Using your argument now, we should let the political process to work out the abortion issue (ie. let each state decide and vote on their abortion policies).

Actually, Peter Singer thin... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Actually, Peter Singer thinks animals are intrinsically valuable, and some enjoy a broader range of "interests" than people of limited mental capacity. I also think Peter Singer is wrong.

Look, all the value argument needs in order for it to work is that 1) things are valuable; 2) the concept of value is unintelligible without something that can appreciate it; and 3) a world without persons (people, maybe dolphins and primates) is a world without value.

This worldview implicitly rejects Stalinism/Nazism, which allows for human life to be used as a means to an end. As Raz's worldview is fundamentally Kantian, it excludes lunatics like Hitler/Stalin from "getting it right".

As for your other points:

#2--what is a law that "promotes" something? You mean a public awareness campaign, right? Or do you mean that public awareness campaigns of this sort ought to be mandatory? What would the difference be?

#3--yes, I would support that law. I support universal health coverage for all people.

#4--probably needs to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis, as "brain dead" children can (and should be) unplugged, but babies with Trisomy-21 (formerly referred to as Downs' Syndrome, named after the xenophobic piece of shit Dr. Downs) should be allowed to pursue lives, for they can engage wholeheartedly with valuable objects and activities. (Brain dead people cannot.) Hard to define the handicapped vs. the terminally incompetent, though.

#5--no, I respect that ruling. It's not perfect, but functionally speaking, it works. To overturn the legality of abortion in certain places is to ensure that women in those places pursue abortions through other more surreptitious avenues, and that's not good for them, or for society.

Matthew,(1) In the... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Matthew,

(1) In the famous Kantian justice argument, he basically argued that the world without a creator is meaningless. In order to have meaning (value is sth similar), there must be a creator and life after death. AT least he is more intellectually honest to admit that an atheistic metaphysics will lead to a life without meaning. This should be obvious. You are a product of random evolution. Your life is simply an evoluionary accident, what inherent/intrisic meaning or value does it have?

(2) Since killing babies (esp in 3rd trimester) should be a grave moral concern for people with good conscience, we can have laws requiring doctors/clinics to show every woman in late term abortion decision the option of adoption for example. We don't force them, but we can show them the option for them to choose. They should see the ultrasound of their babies for example.

(3) Good! Obama is a hypocrite then. He is for universal coverage, but against medical care for surviving aborted babies.

(4) Oh, the handicapped doesn't deserve a universal protection of the laws. I see, universal health care is important but universal protection of the handicapped need to be dealt with on ad-hoc basis.

(5) Then you don't want to cede sth to the political process then (this is simply another inconsistency). There will be blue states that would have more even late term abortions. So people can always go to those states. This seems to be an improper understanding of metaethics to me.


The bottom line is this: you don't seem to know enough about your own metaphysics and (as you mentioned) will need to study it again. So next time don't try to comment on metaphysics that you don't know about. Since you gave me advice on my English (even though it had nothing to do with this thread), that 's my advice for you in return.

Because I'm an atheist, my ... (Below threshold)
matthew:

Because I'm an atheist, my life has no meaning. Got it.

Matthew, No problem... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Matthew,
No problem. There are no finals here. Take your time to study your own metaphysics more carefully.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy