The Politics Thread Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

View previous topic :: View next topic

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:42 pm
Message
Reepicheep Master Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 5960 Location: Sailing into the unknown I am very much for the separation of church and state. I oppose abortion legally, because I think it is an infringement on the baby's right to life (independent of theology). However, I don't oppose things like same sex marriage legally even though I consider it to be a sin. I, as a Christian, would deny myself the urge of same sex attraction if I had it, but I don't see why I should impose this on others (at least to non-Christians). However, abortion isn't a matter of theology, it's a matter of life and death. _________________ Where sky and water meet, Where the waves grow sweet, Doubt not, Reepicheep, To find all you seek, There is the utter east.

Posted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:23 pm
Message
Old Master Ben Administrator Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Posts: 2254 Location: Georgia Maybe it's un-American of me, but my personal belief is that you stick to what you believe in even if everyone else doesn't like it. If I ran for president, I wouldn't throw aside my religious values because the entire population won't share them. And abortion is hardly an issue based entirely on religious versus non-religious people. You can have a strong moral value that isn't religious (I think atheists would agree). Being against abortion while in office doesn't always equal a connection to the separation of church and state. That's the purpose of this election and of these debates. Let your view be known and the people can decide if they want that view in office or not. Don't just say what will get you votes even if that's not what you believe. What does it show your children to teach them one thing and tell the people you lead something else? Be consistent.

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:16 am
Message
illogicalRogue2 Administrator Joined: 01 Sep 2009 Posts: 2845 Location: ....last know presence was near the Tingel Arm.. Old Master Ben wrote: Maybe it's un-American of me, but my personal belief is that you stick to what you believe in even if everyone else doesn't like it. If I ran for president, I wouldn't throw aside my religious values because the entire population won't share them. I agree about sticking to what you believe in, but how far does one go? Do I take my belief that all life is sacred and place that over people's rights to choose what they do with their bodies? For me the right to choose what we do with our bodies is first and foremost. And while every person who chooses to abort might break my heart, it's their right to choose. In the end it's between them God, it shouldn't be between them and everyone with an opinion on the topic. Part of the thing for those who make that decision is the ridicule they get for doing it. It's a hard decision that I pray no one ever makes lightly, but I'd not want any politician making laws based off their religious beliefs vs what would be better for the country. And for me- battling over a topic as old as Abortion is pointless right now- there are much bigger issues at stake. I think while the majority of Americans agree abortion is wrong- like me not all of those are in the prolife camp. Just as many of us are Pro-Choice. As I've said it before- I'm prolife- through pro-choice. I think if we choose who we vote for on the subject of abortion alone we do a disservice to us all. Cause even when IT WAS illegal- it was happening. And worse- not just the babies would die. But it's a thin line between the separation of church and state and voter approval. Apparently we all want like minded individuals running the show. I'm just never keen on ones who want to make new laws that turn Americans into criminals just because of a definition or point of view. Oh today we passed a law- I don't like Star Wars so if you like Star Wars you're going to Jail. _________________ -Bring on your thousands, one at a time or all in a rush. I don't give a damn. None shall pass. - -To become a Jedi, it is not the Force one must learn to control but oneself. - -Podcasts: Star Wars Beyond the Films, The Star Wars Report, & EUCast

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:15 am
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Note: I am trying my best to keep my responses as closely related to politics as I can, though I feel that further discussion on abortion might be better suited to to the abortion thread. I will leave it up to the moderators. To illogicalRogue: This is a sensitive topic, and so please know that if you find anything offensive, it was not meant to be. I know you personally, and really hope we can see eye to eye on this topic. illogicalRogue2 wrote: For me the right to choose what we do with our bodies is first and foremost. I'd not want any politician making laws based off their religious beliefs. The hierarchy of rights starts with life before choice. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And for our Canadian friends, the Canadian Charter of Rights states: "life, liberty, security of the person." Framing the issue as you are now, is not new. If you remember, during the slavery debate, both in the United States and in England, proponents of slavery sought to make it an issue of church and state; they argued that the government should not be in a position to legislate morality or tell them how to run their private lives. However, they continued to miss the point. It was not an issue about choice, it was an issue of human rights; in which case the life of a human should always come first, by the most basic common sense we all possess. As Gregory Koukl puts it, "If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate." illogicalRogue2 wrote: I'm just never keen on ones who want to make new laws that turn Americans into criminals just because of a definition or point of view. Oh today we passed a law- I don't like Star Wars so if you like Star Wars you're going to Jail... Abortion is pointless right now- there are much bigger issues at stake. Please do not confuse objective claims with subjective ones. When pro-life advocates say abortion is wrong, they are making a certain type of claim - specfically, an objective moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion. When you refer to this as merely another "point of view," you are confusing a moral claim with a preference claim. However, pro-life proponents are not talking about a flavor of ice-cream or a favorite movie that they personally enjoy; instead they are saying that abortion is objectively wrong for everyone, no matter the time or place, and regardless of how anyone feels about it. That is why claims like "Dont like abortion? Dont have one!" miss the point completely. Government has an obligation to intervene in the case of human rights! And so with all do respect, there are no "bigger issues" at stake, then the life of a human being. - Last edited by Autobon on Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 1:44 pm
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington - Holy Google bomb, Batman! Just a few days ago Mitt Romney Google bombed himself with the keywords "completely untrue." Now Biden is dealing with the same problem, if one were to search for "proverbs 29:9." I have included the images for your viewing pleasure (first up is Biden, naturally):

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:42 pm
Message
Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA Autobon wrote: If you remember, during the slavery debate, both in the United States and in England, proponents of slavery sought to make it an issue of church and state; they argued that the government should not be in a position to legislate morality or tell them how to run their private lives. However, they continued to miss the point. It was not an issue about choice, it was an issue of human rights; in which case the life of a human should always come first, by the most basic common sense we all possess. Arguably we didn't respect human life of minority races since, even after abolition, we were perfectly willing to kill and rob individuals of basic human rights simply because they weren't white. Human life as it pertained to minorities only came first so long as white interests wouldn't be negatively impacted by respecting that life. Not suggesting that you are necessarily wrong in your statements, merely observing that, in the historical time frame you are refering to, human life was not seen as universally sacred regardless of race which makes the situation far more complex. Take even the Declaration of Independance, some of the signers of it owned slaves but didn't see sufficient contradiction in fighting for "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" and owning slaves to merit immediately freeing slaves upon signing the document. _________________ Last edited by Salaris Vorn on Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 3:53 pm
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Salaris Vorn wrote: Arguably we didn't respect human life of minority races since, even after abolition, we were perfectly willing to kill and rob individuals of basic human rights simply because they weren't white. Your outrage at their treatment only furthers the point. No matter what anyone said, minorities were still human beings, equal in every sense and deserving of the same rights. A human's right to live always comes before anyone's choice. Government, as well as the people, have an obligation to uphold this basic principle.

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:04 pm
Message
Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA Autobon wrote: Salaris Vorn wrote: Arguably we didn't respect human life of minority races since, even after abolition, we were perfectly willing to kill and rob individuals of basic human rights simply because they weren't white. Your outrage at their treatment only furthers my point. No matter what anyone said, minorities were still human beings, equal in every sense and deserving of the same rights. A human's right to live always comes before anyone's choice. Government, as well as the people, have an obligation to uphold this basic principle. You miss my point. As a modern person I'm outraged yes. However, historically this was very much not the case. This is my point is that human life is not the unversal you make it out to be and human life only came first when one's race was white. When it came to choosing white intersts and the life of minority races we, as both a society and government, called for the physical death of minorities if that was required to further our own material desires. Your interpretation of the sacredness of human life is very much a modern one and not one with groundings in a rich historical tradition (in the sense that it is a unversal and remaining unchanged through history). To be clear I don't deny that every idea has to start somewhere. But, as with any idea, the modern incarnation of the idea has likely evolved from it's origins as it was adapted to reflect the changing views of society and thus is not a static, unchanging concept. _________________ Last edited by Salaris Vorn on Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:18 pm; edited 3 times in total

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:04 pm
Message
Dog-Poop_Walker Master Joined: 28 Jan 2012 Posts: 686 Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker Although Abortion is obviously a political issue, it seems to me the issue at hand was about abortion specific to a candidate's personal beliefs influencing their political positions. There is already a thread about Abortion, so if people want to discuss their own feelings about that issue in general, maybe that is the appropriate place instead of this thread. Here's a good question: Do you think that those quotation macros help to outline issues and raise awareness about a candidates platforms and get people more involved in the political process, or do they just distort the message, take people away from the political process or encourage "smear campaigns"? _________________ They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and the powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! Our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because, outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are OUR OWNERS. They have us! They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They’re all about you, all around you!

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:22 pm
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington - Dog_Poop_Walker: I think so far the abortion side topic as stuck pretty well to the main political theme - should government be for or against it. Though I am open to moving it to the abortion thread of a moderator deems it best. Salaris Vorn wrote: You miss my point. As a modern person I'm outraged yes. However, historically this was very much not the case. This is my point is that human life is not the unversal you make it out to be and human life only came first when one's race was white. As an avid reader of history, I disagree. There are countless examples, but lets focus on one - William Wilberforce. After hearing about the atrocities of slavery, he devoted his life to using his position in government to end it. He was also very clear on where he believed a slave's inalienable rights were derived from - "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners [moral values]." The concept of universal human rights is not at all an invention of modern times; it has been around for an incredibly long time. I gave you an example of one man, but there are countless others throughout history - no doubt many of their names going unmentioned in historical documents. Your argument bears many similarities to the Tu quoque logical fallacy. Just because you have cases of what seems to be hypocrisy, and in most cases was, it makes the truth of intrinsic human value no less absolute. It only means that some people were horribly wrong. And despite those cases of hypocrisy, there were still many people that actually followed their principles. Salaris Vorn wrote: As a modern person I'm outraged Most people are not going to bother getting into history anyways, so I believe this to be a stronger point. As a 'modern' person, you clearly seem to believe strongly in human rights. In light of that, do you believe it is appropriate to pick and choose arbitrarily what a human life is worth? Why should the government have to put choice before life in the case of abortion? The question is open to anyone. -

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:37 pm
Message
Salaris Vorn Moderator Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 2039 Location: New York, USA Autobon wrote: The concept of universal human rights is not at all an invention of modern times; it has been around for an incredibly long time. I gave you an example of one man, but there are countless others throughout history - no doubt many of their names going unmentioned in historical documents. I would point to the fact that in our country's history we were perfectly happy to kill Native Americans and practice cultural extermination after the Civil War. We had accepted the idea that slavery was bad yet, as a society rejected the notion that Native Americans had equal rights to whites, or more to the point, that those rights trumped white aspirations for wealth and land. We had the concept of the "vanishing Indian" in which it was expected that Indians must asimilate or literally die off as the superior white race supplanted them. If you are right and the notion of human rights has existed as a static, unchanging idea then the concept has not been embraced by the majority of society until modern times as the concept most definetely was not applied by the white majority to minority races until recently. Hence how the writers of the Declaration could declare that there were certain inalienable rights while continuing to own slaves and also exclude women from having equal rights. To me that indicates that the human rights they were talking about were very exlusively reserved for white males, not all humans regardless of race or gender. In any event I think you'll interpret my evidence as Tu quoque whereas I reject the notion that my evidence is a logical fallacy. I suspect that we're both fairly well entrenched in our respective views and not likely to budge on our interpretations. EDIT: Quote: Most people are not going to bother getting into history anyways, so I believe this to be a stronger point. As a 'modern' person, you clearly seem to believe strongly in human rights. In light of that, do you believe it is appropriate to pick and choose arbitrarily what a human life is worth? Why should the government have to put choice before life in the case of abortion? The question is open to anyone. As I read it this question is specifically regarding abortion itself rather than any politician's current stand on abortion. I would suggest that, if anyone wishes to answer this question, it be done in the abortion thread. http://www.eucantina.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=156 _________________ Last edited by Salaris Vorn on Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 9:53 pm
Message
Dog-Poop_Walker Master Joined: 28 Jan 2012 Posts: 686 Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker 100% of unborn babies pay no income tax, so Romney shouldn't be concerned with them. _________________ They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and the powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! Our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because, outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are OUR OWNERS. They have us! They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They’re all about you, all around you!

Posted: Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:47 pm
Message
Autobon Master Joined: 17 Apr 2008 Posts: 751 Location: Seattle, Washington Salaris Vorn wrote: In any event I think you'll interpret my evidence as Tu quoque whereas I reject the notion that my evidence is a logical fallacy. I suspect that we're both fairly well entrenched in our respective views and not likely to budge on our interpretations. Considering that my previous response addresses your points, and that we both said what we need to, I agree its best we moved onto the next topic. Dog-Poop_Walker wrote: 100% of unborn babies pay no income tax, so Romney shouldn't be concerned with them. This is trolling at its finest - Last edited by Autobon on Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:37 am
Message
Dog-Poop_Walker Master Joined: 28 Jan 2012 Posts: 686 Location: Official Med. Grove Troublemaker Autobon wrote: This is trolling at its finest - Is that a good or a bad thing? I try to use absurdity to both entertain and enlighten. Granting civic accountability to unborn persons possess many legal and philosophical problems, which was why it has generally not been done, for good or bad. Romney taking a moderate, liberal or otherwise noncommittal stance on abortion is a good political move because it will draw in moderate voters, but won't make people who are against abortion vote for Obama because they were not going to vote for him anyway and will still choose Romney. _________________ They have taken the hearts and minds of our leaders. They have recruited the rich and the powerful, and they have blinded us to the truth! Our human spirit is corrupted. Why do we worship greed? Because, outside the limit of our sight, feeding off us, perched on top of us from birth to death are OUR OWNERS. They have us! They control us! They are our masters! Wake up! They’re all about you, all around you!

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:02 am
Message
Jedi Joe Master Joined: 11 Jun 2009 Posts: 1346 Dog-Poop_Walker wrote: 100% of unborn babies pay no income tax, so Romney shouldn't be concerned with them. Well played, good sir. _________________

The EUCantina Forums Forum Index » The Meditation Grove

Page 35 of 40		All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 34, 35, 36 ... 38, 39, 40  Next

Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First

Jump to: Select a forum Main ----------------Holonet NewsSpaceport Feedback & Suggestions The Star Wars Galaxy ----------------Aush's EU CantinaThe Movie SagaThe Clone Wars Animated TV SeriesThe Expanded Universe: Literature & Media Characters of the Expanded UniverseGamingCollecting  The Community ----------------Creative WorksThe Mos Eisley CantinaThe Meditation Grove Activity Center---------------- The LibraryThe Library's ArchivesRoleplayingBook Club Discussion EUCantina.net Exclusives----------------The Official Forum of Solo SoundVIP Chats  EUCantina Miscellaneous----------------Jobs  You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum