A Question from a Webb Supporter

The Washington Post ^ | November 14, 2006 | John Whitesides

[darkangel82]

That's why I always say that there's almost no difference between the Nazis and today's left.

[MHGinTN]

Science has proven that the unborn can learn. Strange behavior for a non-human don'tchaknow.

[Torie]

as a Slav,

Who knew? :)

[BusterBear]

And they're failing miserably [in Iraq].

How do you know?

[Petronski]

;OD

[Torie]

You were well treated here, IMO, and got a lot of substantive and courteous responses. Kudos to FR. You would not get that from most red meat forums from either side. At DU, coming from the other side, you would get instantly banned.

[Sloth]

Until a certain point, it's nothing. It's a bunch of cells.

I submit that YOU are nothing but a bunch of cells. Prove otherwise.

[IrishCatholic]

If I read you right then a "religious right" politician is someone who actually acts on his principles. Not just mouths them.
Say for example an observant Catholic runs for office,(NOT the CINO's you see now). He believes that abortion is the murder of a human life. That it is a baby that is killed and not the renaming into fetus to make it palatable. That the sick and maimed are included in the inherent sacredness of life. That all efforts should be made to protect them. That embryonic stem cell research is the result from the destruction of a potential person and that alternatives such as adult stem cell and other more promising treatments are a better alternative.
Would the fact that he is Catholic disqualify him from holding office?
Would you support such a litmus test?
Would you agree that those that actually practice and stand by their principles and faith are termed "religious right" by you?
For the three Senators, what brought them to mind? What positions did they take that you felt detracted from their job performance?
How would you stack them up to, say Senator Durbin or Kerry in their Senatorial ratings.
Thanks for keeping the discussion open.

[MHGinTN]

Ah, but according to our elitist democrat liberal guest the institutionalized slaughter of alive unborn humans hasn't harmed society.

[therut]

Oh give me a break. The democrats are just as narrrow minded. You think they are going to give up on gun control, aboriton on demand and gay rights. I say to them cease on these issures(as they tell me) and then we can talk. They will not. This is what drives them beyond anything. The social issues are what they are after. They could can less about foreign policy except to push for international gun control, abortion rights as a human right, somehow abolish war with international laws , open borders and destroy the nation state as we are all one now, gay marriage as a human right, food, clothing, housing, health care, transportation as human rights. Heck international socialim is their end game. Just a matter of how soon we get there. Hold hands now and sing "We are the World".

[JCEccles]

But they're not "humans." Just inconvenient masses of cells . . . wih hearts, and lungs, and brains, and legs, and arms, and torsos, and heads, and eyes, and mouths . . . .

So it's okay. You simply define the hideous practice away. Sleight-of-word.

[therut]

Let me tell you as a physician about partial birth aboritons in the 3rd trimester. I deliver babies. That child that has been delived except for the head can feel pain. They move and wiggle. I can not imagine how any moral person could at that moment could stick sissors into the bottom of the skull and suck the brains out. It is inhumaine and never medically necessary. That is a LIE. Just go ahead and deliver the head and a live baby. There is no medical reason to kill it at that time except to kill it. What is keeping us from delivering the head and then smashing it with a rock. One minute. Answer that one.

[DCBandita]

So your argument is that the US Constitution does not empower the legislative branch to make law? Because a law was made to address issue of surveillance. And that law was ignored.

[DCBandita]

It's not an easy anser - it's a legal answer. Embezzling is illegal. Abortion is not.

[therut]

You need to seriously take a long time and think about what you said. Not a person by legal defination not a scientific one. It is a developing HUMAN. Just because it it not legally a person does not make it not human. JUst because something is not illegal does not make it right, ethical or moral. It was not illegal to own slaves but it was not right, ethical or moral. Think a little deeper than talking points. I can by my thoughts after deep long thinking and becoming a physician. At one time maybe when I was very young and ill informed and arrogant I could rationalize it just as you do. But I was lying to myself. And I finally admitted what I knew from the first.

[murphE]

I'd rather people live their principles and not try to legislate them at all.

Me too. Take murder for instance - if you don't want to kill anybody fine, that's your choice, but what gives you the right to try to impose your morals on me. /sarcasm

[MHGinTN]

And that is why such an one is not a Christian, but will argue they are. In the end, they've opted to be god unto themselves and place outside their realm of consideration anything they choose to disregard if it conflicts with their sovereignty over God's sovereignty. In the end, God is demoted to be their servant if they want it so or to be ignored if it conflicts with their standards. A person who will dehumanize alive, sensing unborn children in order to send them to slaughter as if the woman choosing the killing has total sovereignty to kill the other is not a follower of Christ no matter how they spin it. Barry Linde is a prime example of a dead-souled liberal. The visiting poster is a close approximation of same.

[murphE]

Embezzling is illegal. Abortion is not.

Slavery was legal once, was it good or right when it was? Did it only become immoral when it became illegal?

[DCBandita]

So you must be opposed to birth control pills because conception still occurs. Because your continuum exists at a far earlier point than my continuum does. You have science to back yours up, I have science to back mine up.

I haven't moved from anything, actually. The fact that morality is relative is precisely the reason it can't be legislated.

There are absolutes and those are which the society agrees on almost to a person. For example, most people would consider it a moral absolute that I am not permitted to hit you over the head and take your wallet. This law, the one that prohibits me from stealing your wallet, is universally accepted and one which you don't see opposition groups springing up to overturn (e.g., it's not viably in dispute). I would consider that an absolute.

Abortion does not fit that category. I find it curious that some of the commenters in this thread would like to see the issue turned back to the states. My equal protection issues aside, I would wager that the pro-life set would be roundly unhappy with the outcome of submitting it to public referendum as those that feel abortion should be illegal are decidedly a minority.

[JCEccles]

The "banality of evil."