Can America Handle the truth?

[Heartland Patriot]

BTW, there were far fewer REPORTED abortions prior to Roe. One of the functions of the law particularly in our society is to tell people that an activity is morally wrong. Usually just making an activity illegal reduces that activity even if not vigorously enforced.

I fixed it for you. There were illegal ones performed, many by back alley 'clinic', and even some by competent physicians, they just weren't reported because they were illegal. Not so long ago (before the mid-60's) in many states it was illegal for a woman to have her tubes tied, and birth control pills were also illegal. However, I know of many women who had it done by a doctor or got pills illegally. Times have changed and so have the needs.

I don't condone the abortion of a healthy fetus, or being done electively for no other reason than terminating the pregnancy, but I do believe there are times it is necessary and prudent for the life and health of the mother.

And I think that goes to how gdanaher and I approached the topic, though from different directions, of course.

[talltex]

Saving the life of an unborn child is equivalent to saving the life of any other innocent being. Executing murderers is equivalent to executing abortion providers. See the difference?

Whoooaaa....do you actually believe what you just wrote...That killing a Doctor or Nurse that works at a medical clinic which provides abortion services is equivalent to the state executing a convicted murderer? THAT is scary!

Well, perhaps you need to think about it for a while. Note that I am *not* advocating for the execution of abortion providers. I am simply saying that there is NO moral ambiguity about being both pro-life and pro-captial punishment. Both honor life. Being pro-abortion does not honor life, and neither does being anti-capital punishment.

Perhaps, you need to think about exactly what you wrote...your statement stands on it's own. You are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers and you state that executing them is EQUIVALENT to executing abortion providers. Not much ambiguity in that statement. You may not be advocating it, but you have made it plain that you think that they deserve it. I am also in favor of the death penalty...for those convicted of a crime that justifies it as legally defined in the penal code...people working in an abortion clinic have broken no law, and in no way are they the equivalent of a convicted murderer. I am not pro-abortion or pro-life...I simply don't think me, or you, or anyone else has the right to impose our views on others regardless of how certain we may be that ours is the correct view. Let's all tend to our own moral shortcomings and let others do the same...I'm pretty sure we all have plenty of them to go around.

[Oldgringo]

{snip}
...I simply don't think me, or you, or anyone else has the right to impose our views on others regardless of how certain we may be that ours is the correct view. Let's all tend to our own moral shortcomings and let others do the same...I'm pretty sure we all have plenty of them to go around.

talltex's sentiment may be called "Moral Relativism"? But whatever it is, I can dig it.

[baldeagle]

Saving the life of an unborn child is equivalent to saving the life of any other innocent being. Executing murderers is equivalent to executing abortion providers. See the difference?

Whoooaaa....do you actually believe what you just wrote...That killing a Doctor or Nurse that works at a medical clinic which provides abortion services is equivalent to the state executing a convicted murderer? THAT is scary!

Well, perhaps you need to think about it for a while. Note that I am *not* advocating for the execution of abortion providers. I am simply saying that there is NO moral ambiguity about being both pro-life and pro-captial punishment. Both honor life. Being pro-abortion does not honor life, and neither does being anti-capital punishment.

Perhaps, you need to think about exactly what you wrote...your statement stands on it's own. You are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers and you state that executing them is EQUIVALENT to executing abortion providers. Not much ambiguity in that statement. You may not be advocating it, but you have made it plain that you think that they deserve it.

Of course they do. Murderers kill innocent people. That's why we put them to death. Abortionists kill innocent babies. They deserve the same fate and for the same reason.

Don't worry. It will never happen. Far too many people think it's a personal "choice". And those same people would never think that killing an annoying neighbor would be their choice. Nor can they see the illogical inconsistency of their position.

I am also in favor of the death penalty...for those convicted of a crime that justifies it as legally defined in the penal code...people working in an abortion clinic have broken no law, and in no way are they the equivalent of a convicted murderer.

There are man's laws, and then there are the laws of nature - you know - the ones our forefathers referenced in the Declaration of Independence, that forgotten document that no one bothers to read or think about any more because it's so passe.

I am not pro-abortion or pro-life...I simply don't think me, or you, or anyone else has the right to impose our views on others regardless of how certain we may be that ours is the correct view. Let's all tend to our own moral shortcomings and let others do the same...I'm pretty sure we all have plenty of them to go around.

Again, the moral equivalence argument. Because none of us is perfect, none of us can judge, which is the moral equivalent of you can do anything you want so long as it doesn't harm someone else - except for fetuses, of course.

I'm curious though. How do you justify imposing your views on others regarding the death penalty? Do you think it's fair, simply because you think murder is wrong and it happens to be against the laws of our society, that you then impose that view on others?

Or is it just possible that there really are some moral absolutes that don't change just because people's opinions change? Was slavery wrong when it was legal? Or did it only become wrong after it was illegal? Would raping a woman be OK if the law permitted it, as is the case in Islamic countries? (In fact, even murder is condoned "for the family honor".)

You see moral equivalence is a slippery slope upon which any behavior can be justified if you can just get enough people to agree with you to make it legal.

[emcee rib]

The problem is that you can't count on abstinence ...

Why not? It is 100% effective when used.

Except for one reputed instance, C-dub's statement is correct...I think.

I remember reading about that. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2525921/.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pcgizzmo]

So, I am guessing that all those that want less government are also for legalizng drugs right? They don't hurt anyone but the people that do them. If it doesn't affect you then it should be OK right? For the record, I don't see a problem with legalizing marijuana.

[baldeagle]

So, I am guessing that all those that want less government are also for legalizng drugs right? They don't hurt anyone but the people that do them. If it doesn't affect you then it should be OK right? For the record, I don't see a problem with legalizing marijuana.

Drugs don't hurt anyone but the people that do them? What world do you live in? That's like saying prostitution never hurts anyone but the people involved. The effects of sin (pick a different word if you don't like the religious connotations) are far reaching. Watch any of the drug addition shows on TV and you will understand that when one person does drugs the entire family suffers. Even extended family members suffer. And that impact extends to those they interact with and eventually to all of society.

The effects of evil behavior are far reaching, damaging not only the participants but those around them as well as the society at large. Read Mayor Guiliani's book on leadership. Especially the part about the broken window syndrome. Each immoral behavior we allow without protest further weakens society. Why do you think America is in the shape it's in now? We didn't get there overnight. We're at the point now where immorality in leadership is winked out. A President having sex in the Oval Office is not even a reason for disgust, much less not re-electing him. A Treasury Secretary not paying his taxes is humorous. A UN Ambassador lying through her teeth to the American people evokes outrage against those who complain about it rather than the liar herself.

And yes, I know our Founding Fathers had their own share of peccadilloes. The problem isn't the reckless and immoral behavior of leaders. It's our willing acceptance of it as a nation without complaint. It's our failure to hold our leaders accountable for upholding the high standard that the Founding Fathers set for us. It's our constant abandonment of our lower standards and acceptance of even lower standards until there are no standards left and the worst kind of immoral behavior isn't even a good enough reason to stop voting for someone.

Look what it has brought us to. A nation adrift, with no moral boundaries left, sinking into financial desperation with no end in sight and still we party all night as if nothing at all is wrong. Even when the country collapses and our freedoms are completely gone, many will not see the connection.

[Oldgringo]

This thread has devolved, through 9 pages, into a divisive and sometimes acrimonious debate on abortion. Has anyone changed their minds or is this ?

[mamabearCali]

This thread has devolved, through 9 pages, into a divisive and sometimes acrimonious debate on abortion. Has anyone changed their minds or is this ?

Nope, but it has shown me that the Republican Party is quite likely to split soon. Democrat lite republicans are blaming the prolife section of the base for their most recent losses (forgetting of course that it was two flip floppers on this very issue that were our last two presidential nominees). Pro-life republicans are not going to move on this issue because they see it as a bedrock issue. They think we lost the last two elections because we were not true to our principals. In reality we lost the election because of the Santa Claus effect, and the personality cult of Obama. Abortion was a useful sideshow for athe democrats and because the republicans did not stick to their principals it became an albatross. Had the republicans stood up for principals, it would have taken the wind of their sails a bit. Be either hot or cold, because lukewarm behavior gets you squished like a bug.

[baldeagle]

This thread has devolved, through 9 pages, into a divisive and sometimes acrimonious debate on abortion. Has anyone changed their minds or is this ?

Nope, but it has shown me that the Republican Party is quite likely to split soon. Democrat lite republicans are blaming the prolife section of the base for their most recent losses (forgetting of course that it was two flip floppers on this very issue that were our last two presidential nominees). Pro-life republicans are not going to move on this issue because they see it as a bedrock issue. They think we lost the last two elections because we were not true to our principals. In reality we lost the election because of the Santa Claus effect, and the personality cult of Obama. Abortion was a useful sideshow for athe democrats and because the republicans did not stick to their principals it became an albatross. Had the republicans stood up for principals, it would have taken the wind of their sails a bit. Be either hot or cold, because lukewarm behavior gets you squished like a bug.

I totally agree. I don't see any way the current Republican party can survive. Conservatives will not tolerate the cowardice of the "leadership" any more. Either you stand for something or we won't vote for you any more.

I suspect the Tea Party will become a real party and the Republicans will fade into history as the party that went from principled politics to cowardly namby-pamby go-along-to-get-along politicians.

[punkndisorderly]

Seems to me there are two types of folks that are required for Republicans to win. Without bot, the republicans and both types of people lose.

The first type is the social and economic conservative. They want smaller government but still want government meddling in folks lives (as long as government meddles on behalf of their values).

The second is the libertarian (small L). They want smaller government and are willing to tolerate different values as long as their values are tolerated as well.

Granted, most people don't fall purely in one camp or the other, but fall along some continuum between the two.

The social conservative types drive away the libetarian types who don't want government involved at all. Social conservatives deride them as puritans and social relativists. Libertarians drive away the social conservatives, and characterize them as little old ladies too interested in everyone elses business.

As a result, we end up with horrible candidates that lose.

Unless the Republicans can focus on the issues that unite both (and the undecided) they willl continue to wind up under Democratic rule and get NONE of what they want and everything they DON'T want.

[Heartland Patriot]

Seems to me there are two types of folks that are required for Republicans to win. Without bot, the republicans and both types of people lose.

The first type is the social and economic conservative. They want smaller government but still want government meddling in folks lives (as long as government meddles on behalf of their values).

The second is the libertarian (small L). They want smaller government and are willing to tolerate different values as long as their values are tolerated as well.

Granted, most people don't fall purely in one camp or the other, but fall along some continuum between the two.

The social conservative types drive away the libetarian types who don't want government involved at all. Social conservatives deride them as puritans and social relativists. Libertarians drive away the social conservatives, and characterize them as little old ladies too interested in everyone elses business.

As a result, we end up with horrible candidates that lose.

Unless the Republicans can focus on the issues that unite both (and the undecided) they willl continue to wind up under Democratic rule and get NONE of what they want and everything they DON'T want.

Which is why I keep saying that I understand I cannot stop people from doing things I don't like them doing...but I sure do not want to be forced, by the government, to pay for those actions. Morals cannot be legislated, they must be taught, usually from an early age. (That is a topic for another time about the sorry state of our educational system, and its complete and utter rot from within, IMO.) Behavior, however, can be LIMITED through legislation...and it gets even more limited when you have to pay for it out of YOUR pocket, without the government giving you other folks' money to pay for it, and the consequences of it.

[tbrown]

So, I am guessing that all those that want less government are also for legalizng drugs right?

Sure. I have no objections to making it legal for an adult to buy alcohol, ibuprofen, tetrahydrocannabinol, or azithromycin without a prescription. I think driving while intoxicated (from anything) should remain illegal, because it endangers others. I support employers being able to fire people who can't do their job, whether intoxicated, incompetent, or plumb stupid.

I also think voluntary impairment should not be a defense in criminal or civil matters. If you knowingly get stoned and enter into a contract, it should be binding. If you get drunk and kill a man, or steal a TV, there should be no leniency because of your mental state.

I also support abolition of 50% or more of "entitlement" spending, including the anti-drug strawman of taxpayer funded healthcare for people who injure themselves while intoxicated. So many problems would auto-solve if we allowed the invisible hand and natural selection to work.

[talltex]

This thread has devolved, through 9 pages, into a divisive and sometimes acrimonious debate on abortion. Has anyone changed their minds or is this ?

I believe you are correct, sir...

[pcgizzmo]

So, I am guessing that all those that want less government are also for legalizng drugs right? They don't hurt anyone but the people that do them. If it doesn't affect you then it should be OK right? For the record, I don't see a problem with legalizing marijuana.

Drugs don't hurt anyone but the people that do them? What world do you live in? That's like saying prostitution never hurts anyone but the people involved. The effects of sin (pick a different word if you don't like the religious connotations) are far reaching. Watch any of the drug addition shows on TV and you will understand that when one person does drugs the entire family suffers. Even extended family members suffer. And that impact extends to those they interact with and eventually to all of society.

The effects of evil behavior are far reaching, damaging no only the participants but those around them as well as the society at large. Read Mayor Guiliani's book on leadership. Especially the part about the broken window syndrome. Each immoral behavior we allow without protest further weakens society. Why do you think America is in the shape it's in now? We didn't get there overnight. We're at the point now where immorality in leadership is winked out. A President having sex in the Oval Office is not even a reason for disgust, much less not re-electing him. A Treasury Secretary not paying his taxes is humorous. A UN Ambassador lying through her teeth to the American people evokes outrage against those who complain about it rather than the liar herself.

And yes, I know our Founding Fathers had their own share of peccadilloes. The problem isn't the reckless and immoral behavior of leaders. It's our willing acceptance of it as a nation without complaint. It's our failure to hold our leaders accountable for upholding the high standard that the Founding Fathers set for us. It's our constant abandonment of our lower standards and acceptance of even lower standards until there are no standards left and the worst kind of immoral behavior isn't even a good enough reason to stop voting for someone.

Look what it has brought us to. A nation adrift, with no moral boundaries left, sinking into financial desperation with no end in sight and still we party all night as if nothing at all is wrong. Even when the country collapses and our freedoms are completely gone, many will not see the connection.

So, you've never taken a drink? Maybe one too many? You've taken a drug if so. Morality is just a number on a dart board based on who you talk to. in the 1600's men routinely married girls as young as 9. Many societies allowed polygamy. Amsterdam allows smoking of hashish and prostitution. You can get prescription drugs over the counter in Mexico. Ft. Worth Tx used to have legalized prostitution. What is sin to one may not be to another and it changes with the times and the mindset of the people.

It seems like everyone want's less government unless there is something the government legislates that somehow matches their idea of morality. This all stems from someone's idea of what is right for them should be right for everyone else. If we were to move away from the way of thinking we would all be a lot better off.