Big Blue Wave's Comments
If people of religion really want to stop the hate, then maybe they could acknowledge the very valid reasons why many people have abandoned or rejected organized religion and traditional Christian beliefs (i.e. instead of labelling them en masse as bad, undisciplined mockers as if they are pre-teens who need to be corrected and are too immature to understand your "Truth".)
It took me years to understand and acknowledge the anti-intellectual tradition behind the evangelical faith, and to overcome its influence. I did this as an adult. I do not consider myself to be a mocker of faith, though I have noted the tendency of people of faith to be extremely sensitive to any forms of criticism, however well-founded, valid and respectful they may be. I can understand why they feel that way, as I was once on the other side of the fence. However, in general, I did not experience mockery - the only exception being when I was trying to show people how inferior and deficient they were, morally and intellectually, when they refused to believe the way I did. Looking back on that, I can now understand how they must have felt.
Also, another hint to people of religion is to remember that their faith is not a trump card when it comes to politics and science. That is, please feel free to believe as you wish, but don't attempt to impose belief on people who have other concerns, preoccupations and understandings. Try to work with, rather than against your fellow human beings who happen to be unbelievers.
brebis, not everyone who has left religion is a mocker. People have a host of reasons for leaving a faith. But there is a subset of militant atheists who are mockers. I was addressing that particular population.
"It took me years to understand and acknowledge the anti-intellectual tradition behind the evangelical faith, and to overcome its influence."
It is my personal belief that Evangelical Christianity is intellectually untenable. And I don't mean to say that other religions are true. But they have a more complex intellectual edifice. That's not to say that all Evangelical Christians are dumb or that there is no intellectual tradition among Evangelical Christians. It's that its intellectual tradition is flimsy. Most Evangelicals I have come across are woefully unable to defend their faith. They are incapable of logical nuance. When they critically examine their religious beliefs, two things tend to happen. They either move towards Catholicism...adopting a more "high Church" approach (if they don't out-and-out adopt Catholicism) or they move towards atheism.
"Also, another hint to people of religion is to remember that their faith is not a trump card when it comes to politics and science. That is, please feel free to believe as you wish, but don't attempt to impose belief on people who have other concerns, preoccupations and understandings. Try to work with, rather than against your fellow human beings who happen to be unbelievers."
So what are you saying, exactly? That people of faith must not vote and act according tot heir values?
Every person must act according to what he thinks is right, regardless of the source of those values. Asking people to give up on what they think is true is asking them to live in an Orwellian world where they have to act like black is white and white is black, even is they don't believe it.
If we want people of integrity to vote and elect public office, we must allow them the freedom to act according to what they think is true. Of course we can object to their policies and behaviour, but we can't ask people to leave their faith at home. That's asking people to behave without integrity.
People that mock religion frequently don't realize that they have their own religion. Athiesm or "Secular Humanism" are both religions that require a kind of faith. They also require a great deal of the same attitudes that traditional religions hold toward blasphemy.
Why else would they fight so hard against the notion that there might be a God? They blindly deny the possibility, so any argument that runs counter to their faith must be rejected out of hand and its adherents must be fools and suffer from an impairment of logic.
I pity them. After all they have, under their own view, nothing to look forward to in the afterlife. For their sakes, they'd better be right, because the alternative isn't a pleasant one for those that deny His existence.
"Every person must act according to what he thinks is right, regardless of the source of those values. Asking people to give up on what they think is true is asking them to live in an Orwellian world where they have to act like black is white and white is black, even is they don't believe it."
What a beautiful thought! Wonderful concept! Absolutely true! Congratulations!
Now. Apply it to the pro-choice view. Do it now.
"Now. Apply it to the pro-choice view. Do it now."
So why do we all have to pay for your elective surgery every time you want to have sex without sex-discipline. Stop it now.
Ken, read it again. Or are you into telling people they have to give up what they believe in to satisfy your beliefs?
I believe in consequence-free sex. I use birth control. But it's not one hundred percent effective. I do not believe in being pregnant. So I choose what's good for me.
My choice. You don't get to vote on it.
" Ken, read it again. Or are you into telling people they have to give up what they believe in to satisfy your beliefs?"
Believe in whatever you want. Just don't ask everyone to pay for your fun.
"My choice. You don't get to vote on it."
Typical liberal attitude. They believe in the right to choose as long as it's their choice. Even the kid doesn't get a choice.
It appears that Ken is OK with abortion as long as he doesn't have to pay for it.
Is that true Ken? You'd be fine with abortion as long as it wasn't taxpayer funded?
"It is my personal belief that Evangelical Christianity is intellectually untenable... That's not to say that all Evangelical Christians are dumb..."
Um... isn't this the type of "mocking" you are denouncing with this post? Double standard much?
"Athiesm or 'Secular Humanism' are both religions that require a kind of faith."
I love this argument! It's so utterly ridiculous! My atheistic beliefs require the same faith as my 'unicorns_don't_exist' belief, and my 'santa_doesn't_exist' belief, etc... It's simply the default stance. Until someone, anyone, can provide some evidence for god I'll stick with the default position. We're all born atheist until the brainwashing starts....
"Why else would they fight so hard against the notion that there might be a God?"
Simple - because god-fearing people have an agenda that we don't agree with. Right now, (in 2008 no less!), we have religiously motivated people in the U.S. trying to put religion into biology classes. It's happening in Europe too. This is unacceptable... and then there are the 'end_of_times' people (sarah palin) who have a vested interest in ending the world. How much effort do you expect an end_of_times person to put into righting the environment? They expect the world to end within a few years anyway... why bother with the environment??
You see, whether you like to admit it or not, there are MANY MANY valid reasons for apposing religion.
"They blindly deny the possibility"
No, we simply follow the evidence! You people take it so personally - we aren't "blindly" doing anything, we simply require some actual evidence before we will believe it (or take it seriously).
"I pity them. After all they have, under their own view, nothing to look forward to in the afterlife."
That's so strange... because I pity you. You go through life preparing for an afterlife that won't come... all that energy you could have used enjoying the ONE ACTUAL life you get.
Gorgon
I'm not saying that every behaviour is correct.
I'm saying that we cannot deny people the right to act according to their values simply because they are religious. We can prevent people from behaving a certain way. But we cannot allow people to leave their values at home. That's what I'm saying.
"My choice. You don't get to vote on it."
We get to vote on who has human rights.
I say an unborn child has human rights.
"Believe in whatever you want. Just don't ask everyone to pay for your fun."
You see my hand anywhere near your wallet? Try not assuming so much. You're not that important to my enjoyment of MY life.
"I'm not saying that every behaviour is correct."
Well, that's good, because if you did you'd be arguing against yourself. Trying to prevent someone else from doing anything you don't approve of just because you don't approve of it is WRONG!
"...we cannot deny people the right to act according to their values simply because they are religious."
And even if they're NOT religious. Right? RIGHT?
"We get to vote on who has human rights."
For someone who wants to do away with the human rights commission, you sure have a peculiar way of doling out your ideas on who gets to have which rights.
"But we cannot allow people to leave their values at home."
I don't see anyone being forced to leave their values at home. That IS what you meant, isn't it?
They just don't get to force those values on to anyone else and tell them how they have to think and live.
"I say an unborn child has human rights."
If it's yours, you can do whatever you want with it and give it whatever importance you want to give it, but you don't get to tell me what I have to do for it or with it or to it or what I have to call it if it's not a born child yet. You get to choose your way of being, and I get to choose mine. That's what CHOICE is all about.
"You go through life preparing for an afterlife that won't come..."
Yes, it's kind of like they spend their entire lives working double shifts, depriving themselves of sleep and food and fun and comfort and all kinds of diversions and putting all their money into a huge retirement account so they can REALLY enjoy life after self-imposed slavery, and when they finally retire they find out the bank is closed and the bank manager has fled to his own personal island that he bought and furnished with THEIR money!
Suckers, really. Oh, well. PT Barnum said there's one born every minute. I guess that accounts for the lack of birth control.
"For someone who wants to do away with the human rights commission, you sure have a peculiar way of doling out your ideas on who gets to have which rights."
Human rights commissions don't enforce human rights. They enforce political correctness.
"I don't see anyone being forced to leave their values at home. That IS what you meant, isn't it?"
There is strong public pressure for people to leave their values at home if they're a Christian MP, a doctor, a pharmacist, a teacher, a psychologist or a number of other professions. They're expected to not practice their profession according to their values but according to society's values.
"They just don't get to force those values on to anyone else and tell them how they have to think and live."
And I want the same freedom for unborn children-- that those who support legal abortion do not impose their values on them.
" but you don't get to tell me what I have to do for it or with it or to it or what I have to call it if it's not a born child yet"
I believe in the equality of ALL human beings, including those that do not "belong" to me.
Would you have said the same thing to the white owner of a black slave: "You can do whatever you want to that black slave...I won't impose my values on you."
" You get to choose your way of being, and I get to choose mine. That's what CHOICE is all about."
I want all human beings to have that potential to make that choice, including unborn children. They get death inflicted on them, and they have no choice.
Interesting, you're all for choice, except you're okay when women impose choice on unborn human beings.
"Suckers, really. "
No, actually, I'm very happy being Catholic. I don't see any advantage whatsoever in not having faith. Faith is the best thing that's ever happen to me. I think non-believers are the suckers.
"PT Barnum said there's one born every minute. I guess that accounts for the lack of birth control."
Yeah, we'll outbreed you and take over the world. That's our hidden agenda 
gorgon said, "You see my hand anywhere near your wallet?"
Yes I do. About 300 times a day in Canada you demand $1,000 from us taxpayers to pay for your sex fun. We would rather spend the money on real health care.
"Would you have said the same thing to the white owner of a black slave"
Yawn... still?
I'll tell you what - the answer to that question is yes, IF the "black slave" was living inside the "white owner", attached by a feeding tube and requiring the "white owner" to eat properly and often, deal with all kinds of medical issues like swollen feet and heart burn.... in that case, yes - I would say the same thing to the "white owner" because the situation would be similar/the_same.
Since the situations are NOT similar your question is not only moot, but ridiculous! You insult slaves and the struggle they went through every time you use them in comparison to abortion!
"I want all human beings to have that potential to make that choice, including unborn children."
But how the hell is an UNBORN anything going to make ANY decisions? Can't you see how ridiculous your stance is? Unborn children making decisions?
That YOU don't agree with the decision the parent of the unborn child makes doesn't make it any less THEIR decision to make!
And Ken: health care isn't set up that way in Canada. You can't opt out of paying for procedure X because you don't agree with it. I don't agree with lung cancer treatment for chronic smokers, but we all pay for that too!
"They're expected to not practice their profession according to their values but according to society's values."
Expected to do their jobs just like everyone else? Oh, how UNFAIR! The rest of us have to do our jobs according to the values of the company we work for (and when you work for the general public, they are the company you work for), but "some" people get to say no I don't like your values so I want to do it with my own values and my values don't include doing everything I was hired to do?
"Interesting, you're all for choice, except you're okay when women impose choice on unborn human beings."
I bet you're okay when people like you impose your choice on women. You're a woman, right? What kind of woman are you that you would want to do that to other women? I don't care what you do to yourself. Your life, your choice. But doing it to others? You just said it wasn't right to do that. So why do you do that?
I don't believe in unborn beings. They can't have rights if they're not born yet any more than a corpse can continue to have rights when it's dead. Except maybe in Louisiana, where some of them continue voting for years after they've buried.
As I said, you can believe in them if you want. Makes no difference to me. But you can't tell me I have to believe in it. You said so yourself.
"I'm very happy being Catholic."
I'm happy for you. But you're not me, and I'm not catholic, and we don't believe in the same things, and there's nothing you can do about that and you shouldn't try if you really meant what you said. Why don't you just accept that lots of people don't believe the same way you do, and live your own life with your own values and stop trying to tell the world how wrong it is. The world doesn't care what you believe in.
Kenny. Sweetie. You're boring. I'm not going to sleep with you, so stop calling me, okay?
Oops. Sorry. I keep forgetting to change the signature. This stuff is so automatic. Does it always do that?
"I don't agree with lung cancer treatment for chronic smokers, but we all pay for that too!"
Same old arguement the left always trots out. The fact is smokers have overpaid all their health care bills from the huge amount of taxes they paid.
"Kenny. Sweetie. You're boring. I'm not going to sleep with you, so stop calling me, okay?"
If you're speaking to me; I don't know who you are but you sound too repulsive to even share the same blog with.
"If you're speaking to me; I don't know who you are but you sound too repulsive to even share the same blog with."
That's not what you said last week.
"(and when you work for the general public, they are the company you work for), but "some" people get to say no I don't like your values so I want to do it with my own values and my values don't include doing everything I was hired to do?"
A psychologist is not a public employee. A doctor is a parapublic employee because the institutions he works for are funded by the government, but the government is not his employer. Same thing with the teacher. A doctor in private practice shouldn't be forced to refer for an abortion. A teacher in a private school shouldn't be forced
Government money is used to exert government control, but that's wrong.
"I don't believe in unborn beings."
This is not a debate about Santa Claus. Unborn human beings exist. That's a fact. They are distinct human beings from the woman.
"You're a woman, right? What kind of woman are you that you would want to do that to other women? "
What kind of white man would force another white man to liberate his property?
It's a dumb question, Chimera, and misses the point: unborn children are human beings, and all human beings are equal, therefore they deserve legal protection like everyone else.
"They can't have rights if they're not born yet any more than a corpse can continue to have rights when it's dead. "
Humanity is not dependent on being born. If you're human, you have rights, period. That's the western tradition. Rights are things every humans have by virtue of existing. Birth is not the beginning of existence.
"As I said, you can believe in them if you want. Makes no difference to me. But you can't tell me I have to believe in it. You said so yourself."
Again, you are missing the argument. You can't make that argument of any other gruop of human beings, therefore you can't make it about unborn human beings.
"Why don't you just accept that lots of people don't believe the same way you do"
I do. But I try to change their minds. and effectuate social and legislative change based on that influence. That's my prerogative.
"stop trying to tell the world how wrong it is"
Should the abolitionists have just let the slave-owners lived their lives and not tried to free the slaves.
So long as you do not acknowledge the argument that the point is to gain rights for the unborn child, your arguments will miss the point. It's not about an action. It's about rights for unborn children. "Live and let live" doesn't work when human lives are at stake.
"This is not a debate about Santa Claus. Unborn human beings exist. That's a fact."
No its not a fact, it's your OPINION and your BELIEF. It's not my opinion and not my belief. And no, it's not a debate about Santa Claus, it's a debate about beliefs. I have mine and you have yours and we are BOTH ENTITLED. So leave mine alone.
"What kind of white man"
Why bring race into it? Or men? Or anyone else. I am talking to YOU, who is a woman, or so you say. Why do you want to force other women to do something just because you want to do it? And why do you want to stop them just because you don't like something?
"That's the western tradition."
No it's not. I'm western and it's not my tradition.
"They are distinct human beings from the woman."
Then tell them to get out of the woman's body if she doesn't want them there and get a body that does want them. As long as they are where they're not wanted, they're nothing.
"You can't make that argument of any other gruop of human beings"
I'm not talking about human beings. I'm talking about fetuses. You believe they are human beings and I do not.
"So long as you do not acknowledge the argument that the point is to gain rights for the unborn child"
I don't beilieve in what you call "the unborn child". I don't believe it exists as a separate human being so it's wrong to call it a human being or a child of any kind. If it's in my uterus, it's not welcome and I will have it removed.
I said it before. I believe in sex without consequences. I don't believe in getting pregnant so I use birth control. And I don't believe in staying pregnant if the birth control doesn't work, so if that happens I will abort.
And there's nothing you can do about it.
"No its not a fact, it's your OPINION and your BELIEF. It's not my opinion and not my belief. And no, it's not a debate about Santa Claus, it's a debate about beliefs. I have mine and you have yours and we are BOTH ENTITLED. So leave mine alone."
Are you saying that fetuses produced in the body of a woman are not members of the species homo sapiens?
Because it is a scientific fact that they are homo sapiens, ie. human beings.
"Why bring race into it? Or men? Or anyone else. I am talking to YOU, who is a woman, or so you say. Why do you want to force other women to do something just because you want to do it? And why do you want to stop them just because you don't like something?"
Because it's a matter of human rights for the unborn child, just like ending slavery was a matter of human rights for blacks.
"Then tell them to get out of the woman's body if she doesn't want them there and get a body that does want them. As long as they are where they're not wanted, they're nothing."
I have news for you: they're not "nothing". That's a scientific fact. Fetuses are human beings. Another biological fact.
"I don't believe it exists as a separate human being"
It is a distinct human being. He has a separate DNA than the mother. Therefore he is separate. He's just as separate as fleas on a dog, or any of the microorganisms that live on a human being.
"so it's wrong to call it a human being "
What do you call homo sapiens in plain English?
Human beings.
A fetus in a woman is a human being because he is a homo sapiens. It's a biological fact.
"And there's nothing you can do about it."
I can certainly expose your anti-scientific beliefs about the unborn child, and how you cannot admit that abortion takes the life of a human being.
"I said it before. I believe in sex without consequences"
It explains your immature attitude about everything. Even an animal considers the consequence of it's actions.
There's no such thing as sex without consequences. You may not perceive those consequences, but they are there.
Hey suzanne - what do you call a human corpse? Is it not a member of homosapiens?
"Even an animal considers the consequence of it's actions"
First of all, she said she uses birth control - which makes it CLEAR that she considers the consequences of sex. Second of all, I know REAL education isn't always important to the religious - but you do know that humans are animals too right?
"Hey suzanne - what do you call a human corpse? Is it not a member of homosapiens?"
I'm not sure I understand your point, Joe. The unborn are alive and corpses are dead.
"First of all, she said she uses birth control - which makes it CLEAR that she considers the consequences of sex. "
The consequences of sex are not just physical. They're emotional. They're social. They're political.
"Same old arguement the left always trots out. The fact is smokers have overpaid all their health care bills from the huge amount of taxes they paid"
Did you really type this? You have to be kidding right?
You wrote: "About 300 times a day in Canada you demand $1,000 from us taxpayers to pay for your sex fun. We would rather spend the money on real health care."
Are you seeing where this is going yet? I reminded you that you can't opt out of supporting certain procedures because that would wreak havoc on the system as many would opt out of paying for lung cancer treatment for chronic smokers.
You replied that the smokers paid taxes and thus deserve the treatment... are you somehow implying that the women who get abortions DON'T pay taxes?? Your point about the smokers applies to women getting abortions too... sorry about that.
So what was that about the "left trotting" something out again?
"I'm not sure I understand your point, Joe."
Is a human corpse a member of homo-sapiens or not? It's a simple question - and one you ask OVER AND OVER again about fetuses.
So is it?
"The consequences of sex are not just physical. They're emotional. They're social. They're political."
Excuse me? The consequences of sex are "political"? How so?
"Is a human corpse a member of homo-sapiens or not? It's a simple question - and one you ask OVER AND OVER again about fetuses.
So is it?"
Why would you ask that? Are you trying to defend the rights of human corpses?
"
"The consequences of sex are not just physical. They're emotional. They're social. They're political."
Excuse me? The consequences of sex are "political"? How so?"
For instance, suppose a country has high rate of reproduction. That would have ramifications.
Same thing if the rate of reproduction is low.
Transmission of disease is another concern. HIV is devastating parts of Africa and reducing productivity.
Then there's the issue of social cohesion. Promiscuity reduces social cohesion. It leads to single parenthood, family break-up (e.g. adultery) and poverty, etc etc
Even if every unwanted child were eliminated from this world, the effects of sex go far beyond the individual performing it.
"Why would you ask that? Are you trying to defend the rights of human corpses?"
Dance suzanne DANCE!
My goodness, you sure are doing everything you can to avoid answering the question.... hmmmm.. why is that?
I'll answer your counter questions when you answer mine: Is a human corpse a member of homo-sapiens or not?
Thanks for answering the sex/political question. I understand your points - although I disagree that "single parenthood, family break-up .... and poverty" are caused by sex.
Why won't you answer my question?
I'm not answering your question because I don't know if it's a serious question, or whether you're just asking me that question to make a point.
If I know the point to your question, I will answer it.
"Why won't you answer my question?"
I'm getting dizzy... I told you I would answer your question after you answered mine.
"I'm not answering your question because I don't know if it's a serious question"
I can assure you, it is a serious question. I'm curious to see how far you take your 'human being' argument. Is that enough?
Can you answer me now?
I would say that that the corpse is no longer a human being.
So, if the corpse isn't a human being what is it? Is it a dog? A cat? It still appears to have the same qualities that qualify other beings to be a human being.... what is it then?
(you'll notice that this is the EXACT tactic you use on pro-choicers to define a fetus. So you must agree this is fair game.)
I also don't choose to engage in a debate on corpses.
"I also don't choose to engage in a debate on corpses."
Just perfect... your whole 'all humans are equal' argument is blown away with a simple corpse analogy.
I'm guessing that you don't consider a corpse worthy of human rights - and they have to be the most defenceless humans on the planet! How cold, how heartless - if nobody stands up for these humans who will??
How do you spell GOTCHA!
"your whole 'all humans are equal' argument is blown away with a simple corpse analogy."
If you can prove that corpses are human beings, than by all means, do so.
Your analogy is rather weak, Joe.
"consequences of sex are not just physical. They're emotional. They're social. They're political.""
YOU BET they're emotional! A good orgasm puts me in a good mood for hours! No orgasm just makes me grumpy and mean. There isn't such thing as a bad orgasm.
But the only "social" part of is is private, stricly private. But I haven't tried an orgy, yet, if that's what youu mean. I'm not ruling it out for the future, but there's lots of time.
And when I do it in a polling booth, THEN it will be political and not before.
Answer joe's question. Is a corpse a human being? Yes or no? What's so hard about that? It has its own DNA doesn't it? So it's got to be a person, right?
"But I haven't tried an orgy, yet, if that's what youu mean. I'm not ruling it out for the future, but there's lots of time."
Why don't you children go out and play while the adults have a conversation.
Kenny, don't you realize that we'are all God's children here? There are no adults. And the conversation was here before you were so if anyone needs to leave, you'r pointing in the wrong direction.
So Suzie, do you agree with what you said earlier that each of us is entitled to our own beliefs and values and than nobody should force his values on someone who has different ones?
"Every person must act according to what he thinks is right, regardless of the source of those values."
Every person, regardless of the source. Right?
Gorgon, I was talking about politucians. This is what I wrote:
"If we want people of integrity to vote and elect public office, we must allow them the freedom to act according to what they think is true. Of course we can object to their policies and behaviour, but we can't ask people to leave their faith at home. That's asking people to behave without integrity."
That was the gist of my message.
Or do you think people had no right to impose emancipation on white supremacist slave-owners in the South during the US Civil War?
""Every person must act according to what he thinks is right, regardless of the source of those values."
Every person, regardless of the source. Right?"
I was speaking in the context of politics.
So your saying that politicians get to act according to their own values and the rest of the people don't? That politicians that are supposed to answer to the people who elect them can ignore what those people want because they suddenly find a value that doesn't agree with the people that elected them and that wasn't in existence at the time fo the election? Or are you saying that the people who elect the politicians are just electing their own babysitters and nannies to tell them what they're allowed to do because they're too stupid to decide for themselves what they can do and they're not allowed to have their own values? Or are you saying that the only time anyone should act according to his own values is during an election?
Why don't people and their values just leave other people and their values alone to live their own lives according to those values? Why do people like you think that your values are superior to the values of people like me and want to impose your values over mine under force of law? My body belongs to me and I can do with it what I want acccording to my values. And if I get pregnant by accident because the birth control (and it really ought to be called conception control don't you think) didn't work then my values allow me to have an abortion if I don't want to stay pregnant. Or they allow me to have a baby if I decide that's what I want to do. But I'M the one who gets to decide what is done with MY BODY. Not some politician who has never even met me and who I didn't vote for.
"So your saying that politicians get to act according to their own values and the rest of the people don't?"
In the context, I am talking about votes and creating policy. I am not advocating license where people get to do anything they want regardless of how it affects others. I am talking about allowing politicians to do what they think is right on policy and votes.
"That politicians that are supposed to answer to the people who elect them can ignore what those people want because they suddenly find a value that doesn't agree with the people that elected them and that wasn't in existence at the time fo the election?"
If you want politicians of integrity, they must be allowed to do what they think is right. At the very least, they must not be forced to do what they think is evil. This is not to say that parties may never whip votes or that constituents may never try to persuade their MP's.
What I am essentially preaching against is two things. One is the *belief* that politicians must check their values at the door of the legislature-- whether those beliefs are religious or secular. That is the last thing we want politicians to be doing. We want politicians who try to do the right thing. If a politician casts aside what he considers to be the right thing-- whether those values are secular or religious-- then he cannot be a person of integrity. The second thing I am advocating against is the belief that politicians must ALWAYS vote according to the constituents' beliefs EVEN IF it contradicts what the politician believes. I am NOT saying that a politician must NEVER base his vote on what his constituents say. I am saying that if the politician knows that voting a certain way is morally wrong, he mustn't do it.
To advocate for politicians to forego their values is to turn them into machines. That's wrong. Politicians are people, too, and they must try to do what they think is right. Expecting them to do what they consider what they consider to be wrong is to expect them to corrupt themselves.
"Why do people like you think that your values are superior to the values of people like me and want to impose your values over mine under force of law?"
I don't want people to force death on the group of human beings known as unborn children.
Do you think it was okay to force values on white supremacist slave owners?
"My body belongs to me and I can do with it what I want acccording to my values. "
And white supremacists thought slaves belonged to them and that they could do whatever they wanted to them according to their values.
Absolute moral and philosophical relativism doesn't work.
"And if I get pregnant by accident because the birth control (and it really ought to be called conception control don't you think)"
That's why they call it contra-ception.
"But I'M the one who gets to decide what is done with MY BODY."
Here's the thing. I am advocating for the rights of the human being yo
Got cut off...
Here's the thing. I am advocating for the rights of the human being you want to kill. Just like abolitionists advocated for the slaves that white supremacists wanted to have the right to kill in the 19th century.
"We want politicians who try to do the right thing."
That depends on who gets to define what the right thing is. And no your bible is not a dictionary.
"If you want politicians of integrity"
Only if I'M the one who gets to define integrity. Otherwise I just want a politician who does what he's told by the people he represents. If I want to be preached at and lectured to I'll go to church. That what the priests are for. And they don't run my country. They only run my church.
" they must be allowed to do what they think is right."
Even break or subvert the law, the Charter of Rights and the Constitution?
I want politicians who try to do the job their ELECTORS voted them in to do!
And if that means that an elected politician is told by the majority of his constituents that he must act in opposition to his own views in order to represent what the VOTERS want, then I WANT HIM TO DO THAT! I DO NOT WANT ANY POLITICIAN TELLING ME HE WILL NOT DO HIS JOB PROPERLY BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS MORALLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE. THAT'S WHAT PRIESTS ARE FOR.
"human beings known as unborn children"
No such thing. And you still haven't answered the question about whether or not a corpse is a human being.
"white supremacists thought" I don't give a shit what anyone else thought. I am talking about MY OWN BODY. Not someone else's. You do what you want with your own body but the minute you start doing what you want with someone else's body you put yourself in a position to be smacked down real hard. And you would deserve it.
"the human being you want to kill."
The only human beings I would want to kill are those who trespass on my autonomy with their guilt and their thou shall nots and their fantasies about imposing their own narrow moral values on my life. THIS IS MY LIFE AND NOBODY ELSE CAN HAVE IT.
"I DO NOT WANT ANY POLITICIAN TELLING ME HE WILL NOT DO HIS JOB PROPERLY BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS MORALLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE. THAT'S WHAT PRIESTS ARE FOR."
You need to get your inferiority complex fixed. It's telling.
"THIS IS MY LIFE AND NOBODY ELSE CAN HAVE IT."
Trust me. Nobody else wants it.
"And if that means that an elected politician is told by the majority of his constituents that he must act in opposition to his own views in order to represent what the VOTERS want, then I WANT HIM TO DO THAT!"
Then you can't have politicians of integrity.
Integrity means doing what you think is right. If a politician must only act according to other's dictates and submit his conscience to the people, that means doing the right thing is no longer the supreme directive of his behaviour. You don't want a politician to dictate your conscience, but you want to dictate to a politician's conscience.
"I DO NOT WANT ANY POLITICIAN TELLING ME HE WILL NOT DO HIS JOB PROPERLY BECAUSE HE THINKS HE IS MORALLY SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE. THAT'S WHAT PRIESTS ARE FOR."
It's not about "morally superiority". If you don't believe in the supremacy of your own values, or at least some of them, then you have no moral fibre. It's not about preaching. It's about letting an individual human being do what he think is right. You don't want the government to dictate right and wrong, but you want a politician to be dictated to on his sense of right and wrong.
""human beings known as unborn children"
No such thing"
It's a scientific fact. Unborn children are members of homo sapiens, i.e. unborn human beings. Your denial is unscientific.
"And you still haven't answered the question about whether or not a corpse is a human being."
I did, actually.
"The only human beings I would want to kill are those who trespass on my autonomy with their guilt and their thou shall nots and their fantasies about imposing their own narrow moral values on my life. THIS IS MY LIFE AND NOBODY ELSE CAN HAVE IT."
And I want the same thing for unborn human beings. I don't want anyone trespassing on their autonomy, either.
"It's a scientific fact. Unborn children are members of homo sapiens, i.e. unborn human beings. Your denial is unscientific."
In much the same way a corpse is a human being...
I know it's hard for religously motivated people to accept science in its entirety... but when you said "I would say that the corpse is no longer a human being." you are denying science!
Either that or you have some other classification for human corpses. So what is it? If it's not a human being then what is it? A tree? A donut? What??
"I don't want anyone trespassing on their autonomy, either."
Do you know what "autonomy" means?? (hint: living IN someone else, attached to them for dear life, does not mean autonomous!)
"Integrity means doing what you think is right."
I told you: I'M the one who gets to define integrity! And I say it's doing what you promised you would do when you campaigned for the job (and a political campaign is a group job interview, nothing more). And if you lied when you were campaigning just to get elected and then try to do something else because you think it's "right" and the people who elected you are "wrong" then you don't deserve the job and you don't have integrity! And you're fired, and I don't mean at the next election, I mean at recall, right now!
"but you want to dictate to a politician's conscience."
No I don't, I only want to dictate his ACTIONS. I don't care about his "conscience."
"It's about letting an individual human being do what he think is right."
EXACTLY! It's about letting YOU do what YOU think is right with YOUR life and YOUR body and it's about letting ME do what I think is right with MY life and MY body and the two DON'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME THING.
"you want a politician to be dictated to on his sense of right and wrong"
I DON'T CARE what he thinks is right or wrong, I care that he represents me and my wishes. When he works for me, he better do what I say or I will pack his ass in ice and send him back where he came from and get someone who will follow dirctions. I don't pay a representative to go off on a tangent and argue with me about what I want when he campaigned for the job based on how well he can do what I want.
"It's a scientific fact. Unborn children are members of homo sapiens, i.e. unborn human beings. Your denial is unscientific."
It's not a scientific fact. Your definition is unscientific. So what. You believe it and I do not. You're allowed to believe what you want and so am I. Again so what? So you go ahead and give citizenship to that thing in your belly if you want, but if some growth starts in mine, I will get rid of it.
So how about that corpse? Human? Not human? Cat got your tongue?
"I did, actually."
No you did not. It's a yes or no answer. Human or not human. "No longer a human being." Clarify that please. What do you mean EXACTLY?
Or if you're going to stick with that answer, then you have to go back and say that a fetus is NOT YET a human being.
"I don't want anyone trespassing on their autonomy, either."
You don't understand the meaning of autonomy if you think that fetuses can be autonomous. A fetus is a parasitic form of life at best. It doesn't get to be autonomous until its been born and the cord is cut. Then it becomes a human being. Not before.
"It doesn't get to be autonomous until its been born and the cord is cut. Then it becomes a human being. Not before."
So your adult teeth that are growing underneath your baby teeth are not part of you until they come out?
Yes thet are part of me and they also are not trying to claim citizenship status, so what's your point? Suzie keeps saying that a fetus is not part of the mother, that it's a citizen on its own, so you just went across her argument and your own wearing logging spikes.
"A fetus is a parasitic form of life at best. "
A parasite has to be of a different species. Since offspring perform the function of making the species survive, they're not parasites.
"A parasite has to be of a different species."
Where does it say that? A parasite is a plant or animal that sucks life from another plant or animal without giving anything in return. And in MY body that would fit the definition just fine.
Offspring only function to make a species survive if they first get born so they actually become offspring and then if they can survive to adulthood and reproduction theirselves. Until then they're parasites.
Commenting by HaloScan
