Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
In difficult situations, some compromises may be necessary. You, of course, need a rationale for according "life" status to a fertilized ovum. It is indeed interesting how you spend the majority of your effort seeking to divide rather than finding common ground."
It's not vexing to me. Human life comes from God. I didn't create it, thus I can't destroy it. Nor can anyone else.
But you are actually conceding my broad point here. If we can't even agree as a society on what "life" means, which IMO is a pretty straightforward concept, how can we agree to build a society on some abstract concept of "liberty"?
Oh, goody, you're back in your motley again.
The need for a government-limiting constitution? Sure, some people like Hitler or Stalin disagreed. A GLC would hinder their goals immensly. But we're all here on FR, trying to convince each other to agree with our derivations of morality - IOW, trying to convince each other that society would be better off if the majority believed like we do. Pointing to individuals who had different conceptions of morality is irrelevant to that.
OTOH, Hitler* & Stalin were products of specific moral codes. They both believed that individuals, morally speaking, are mere cells inside a larger organism. (The economic class for Stalin, the race for Hitler.) According to them, these super-organisms have fought their rivals throughout history in a deterministic dialectical process first described by Hegel a century earlier. They both ended up murdering millions of innocents & grinding the rest of their subjects into the dirt. And why not, if no individual is a moral actor - only the collective to which they belong?
Your system of morality seems to work. As long as you can dictate the base standard. What if Hitler was right? How can you know for sure?
Moral collectivism makes no sense, and we have a century of contemporary history that confirms this. One could make the argument that evil must exist in order for us to recognize the good, and even America had a mini-love affair with socialism for decades until its terrible effects elsewhere became too obvious to ignore.
*I must point out it was CyberCowboy777 who first mentioned Hitler!
One cannot prove anything to those that do not believe in science.
My dear, sweet child, I'm not an atheist. I am a Roman Catholic.
Then came the SPLIT SCHIZOPHRENIA/America---the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin-DEFORMITY-cancer...Atheist secular materialists through ATHEISM/evolution CHANGED-REMOVED the foundations...demolished the wall(separation of state/religion)--trampled the TRUTH-GOD...built a satanic temple/SWAMP-MALARIA/RELIGION(cult of darwin-marx-satan) over them---made these absolutes subordinate--relative and calling/CHANGING all the... residuals---technology/science === TO evolution via schlock/sMUCK science...to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC--atheism...anti-God/Truth RELIGION(USSC monopoly)--and declared a crusade/WAR--JIHAD--INTOLERANCE/TYRANNY(breaking the establishment clause)...against God--man--society/SCIENCE!
One last thing before I go. Jenny, why do you continue to appeal to history? Is it that your "philosophy" is lacking? Why do you need history to prove your points, when "logic" and "reason" should do the trick?
As I said in my previous post, there are, undoubtedly situations that require compromise. It's part of group living. Citing extremes panders to extremists.
Something like that.
Thank you. Finally!
You for Man ruling Man (i.e. no real freedom). And Me for Man Governed by God (true Freedom)
I don't believe that was directed at me, but nevertheless, how do you establish any society when people can't agree on what "liberty" means?
Only lead foil can save us now...
if you don't want your brain/family sterilized---
the shield between state and TALIBAN--religion(evolution/atheism) is gone...
this is... chernobyl---radiation poisoning...
NUCLEAR SOCIAL----ALIEN ANTARTICA/AMERICA!!
---------------------------------------------------------
Changing--morphing words-meaning-reality...
the CONSTITUTION via your 'logic-reason' to your fantasy-bias world-bs/IDEOLOGY---LIBERALISM/EVOLUTION is called psychosis!
The Supreme Court?
If we are forced to appeal to ourselves, then our ability to have rights ends at our ability to enforce them doesn't it?
That's true. As a political prisoner in the Lubyanka, you could have complained about your infringed "inaliable rights" to your heart's content. You'd be shot just the same.
If we determine rights as a collective group then the right to life only exists if the society you live in agrees.
That's also true. But a society would be insane to refuse to endorse a right to life.
If our society says yes and another society says no, are our lives worth more than theirs?
To us they are. To them, no. It all depends on your perspective.
It's all so confusing.
Amen.
I didn't say it was vexing to you. Nor is it vexing to NOW who take an opposite position to yours. It is, none-the-less vexing. God creates life, but what source do you cite for your statement that life begins at creation, as opposed to some other point?
But you are actually conceding my broad point here. If we can't even agree as a society on what "life" means, which IMO is a pretty straightforward concept, how can we agree to build a society on some abstract concept of "liberty"?
Because there are far more points of agreement between us than there are disagreements. If we focus on the periphery, rather than the vaster, common middle, we will indeed enjoy a difficult society.
Enjoy life under the Taliban!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.