A Call for Consistency

[carpedm9587]

http://thefederalistpapers.org/curre...of-natures-god

----------

That's in addition to other references such as appeals to "the Supreme Judge of the world" and "the protection of Divine Providence".

We also know from the writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers that the majority of them were devout Christians, and before you mention the Treaty of Tripoli, it was re-ratified at a later date and removed the language saying that America was not a Christian nation. There's also Washington's speech to the Delaware Indian chiefs saying that the resources of Congress would be used to teach the American way of life and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So, no, it was never the expectation of our Founders that America would be a secular nation that turned its back of Christianity.

Umm.. no one claimed that they expected that, MM, so you do not appear to be arguing against any position I have taken. I merely pointed out that the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for our legal system, explicitly exludes any mention of gods and twice clearly prohibits the government from activity in religious contexts. THAT is the basis for our legal system, not the Declaration of Independence OR any other writings by the founders.

That most of them were religious men of one faith or another is acknowledged.
That most were members of a Christian sect is also acknowledged.
That they made reference to God in their other writings and in the DOE is also acknowledged.

We are talking about legal equivalence, which is rooted in one and only one document: the Constitution of the United States of America.

[demi-conservative]

So instead of insisting we have to "run for the rope" (i.e., change the laws), why not see what BOTH sides can come to that will make it far less likely a woman will ever have to face this choice? Can you imagine the reaction if someone from the right were to say, "You know, your right to make decisions about your own body DOES matter and DOES deserve to be respected, but I also believe the young life in you deserves to live. How could we achieve both?"

But no - the pervasive message from the right is "your body doesn't matter" and from the left it is "it's not a baby."

So yes, IMO, both sides should be ashamed of themselves for their entrenched, partisan positions with no willingnees to try to see it from the other side and find common ground, while babies die by the minute...

Where to start?

1) We know what lib position is: selfish, irresponsible, abandoning duty.
2) It's not slavery to say that parents need to fulfill duty of theirs. Are you going to say that child support, forced by law, is slavery?
3) Very very necessary to change law because it normalizes killing of babies.

[demi-conservative]

Moderate: Actually, guilt is on both sides'!!! Why dont you be moderate like me, which will magically moderately change things?!?!?!?

Demi: No, it's idiots like you, making excuses for selfish irresponsible baby-killing, who also has blood on hands. Not sides who tries to stop murders.

[Cow Poke]

Umm.. no one claimed that they expected that, MM, so you do not appear to be arguing against any position I have taken. I merely pointed out that the U.S. Constitution, which is the basis for our legal system, explicitly exludes any mention of gods and twice clearly prohibits the government from activity in religious contexts. THAT is the basis for our legal system, not the Declaration of Independence OR any other writings by the founders.

That most of them were religious men of one faith or another is acknowledged.
That most were members of a Christian sect is also acknowledged.
That they made reference to God in their other writings and in the DOE is also acknowledged.

[carpedm9587]

True enough, and no question about it. I imagine it would be hard for a body of mostly Christian men to NOT be influenced by their own religion. I think it would be a stretch, however, to suggest that the exclusion of Sunday in the day count for the acceptance of a law without signature was meant to convey that Christian religions had implicit legal priority in the American legal system, especially with two explicit statements that prohibited government involvement in, or endorsement of, religions.

[Cow Poke]

True enough. I think it would be a stretch, however, to suggest that the exclusion of Sunday in the day count for the acceptance of a law without signature was meant to convey that Christian religions had implicit legal priority in the American legal system, especially with two explicit statements that prohibited government involvement in, or endorsement of, religions.

Well, they didn't make an exception for Friday (for Muslims) or Saturday (for Jews)!

[carpedm9587]

Moderate: Actually, guilt is on both sides'!!! Why dont you be moderate like me, which will magically moderately change things?!?!?!?

Demi: No, it's idiots like you, making excuses for selfish irresponsible baby-killing, who also has blood on hands. Not sides who tries to stop murders.

Umm... no. At no point did I say or imply I thought anyone was an idiot, or suggest that anything was magical - so you are adding things to my post I did not put there.

I DO, however, believe that in an argument on whose outcome hinges the lives of innocents, entrenchment and refusal to find a solution that works, and insistence on viewing the other side as "the bad guy" creates moral complicity. I see both sides doing it, so, IMO, both sides are morally complicit.

And it is not clear to me that the position "abortion is a moral evil, with VERY few exceptions" is a "moderate" position. My "liberal" friends think I'm so far right on this one I am in danger of falling off the measuring stick, despite my observation that "with VERY few exceptions" means there are at least SOME people to the right of me (i.e., those who see no exceptions whatsoever).

[carpedm9587]

Well, they didn't make an exception for Friday (for Muslims) or Saturday (for Jews)!

True enough - hence my concession to "influenced by."

[Jedidiah]

[QUOTE=carpedm9587;493053]

There is not room to do so, Jedediah, because each side has decided "they are right" and it's "my way or the highway." You insist a woman's body has nothing to do with it. They insist the baby is not a life. Both sides entrenched - both sides so focused on "being right" and "forcing law" that neither side is looking to change the status quo, stopping the carnage.

In the time it took to re-assert that "you are right" and the "woman's body doesn't matter," several dozen babies died. In the time it takes the "pro-choice" person to defend their position that "it's not a life," several dozen children died.

We come back to the same question: do you want to be "right?" Or do you want to make a difference? Is "being right" more important than so much as ONE of those lives? If not, then perhaps it is time to reach across the aisle and say, "I know you don't think it is a life, but I do and it matters to me. What can we do to make it far more likely that this life will not be snuffed out, while respecting your right to have sovereignty over your body?"

Or you can continue to say, "I'm right," "I'm right," "I'm right."

You know my position. I find the carnage horrifying, and I believe they are lives from the moment of conception. I also believe a woman has the right to control her own body - as a fundamental right. This issue pits two BASIC freedoms against one another. So long as the right focuses 100% on the baby and ignores the woman, and the left focuses 100% on the woman and ignores the baby, no progress can be or will be made.

So I believe that BOTH sides are complicit in the carnage, by being entrenched, making it an "us versus them" argument, and NOT looking for viable solutions. And each side is busily blaming the other - while children are dying...

The point is my position is not just because I want to stop abortion. My position is based upon my firm belief that the current state of affairs is the modern equivalent of the holocaust. I gave you the degree to which I would compromise. The pro abortion side will not compromise at all.

We will have to simply agree to disagree here.

I have to say that I have mostly given up any meaningful responses since they are just thrown away. I appreciate your treating this honestly even though I disagree.

Do you have any further response to the pro and anti gun debate?

[Jedidiah]

So Peter is hanging from a cliff, pushed over the edge by Fred. Joe and Sam come along, see the man and rush to his aid. Joe suggests they should each take a hand and lift the man back to the path because he is too heavy for one man to lift alone. Sam objects because the man hanging from the cliff is not part of his social circle, and his social circle has a law prohibiting physical contact with such people. He has to be true to his moral code, so insists on running back to his home (a mile away) to get a rope he can use. Joe points out he can use his shirt to cover his hands, suggests grabbing handfuls of leaves, and makes serval other suggestions. Sam objects to each one on the grounds that it does not assure a complete guarantee that he will not touch the prohibited person. Sam runs to his home to follow through on the one solution he has limited himself to.

The man falls...

I suggest that Sam is as culpable as Fred. He stubbornly clung to his ONE approach for dealing with a problem that had multiple possible solutions. The other options weren't perfect, it is true. The leaves could have broken, creating physical contact. The shirt could have ripped, creating physical contact.

So too is it with the abortion debate. No solution will protect every child. Make abortion illegal, and rich women will fly from the country to countries where it IS legal and get them anyway. Poor women will seek out underground abortionists and have dangerous abortions. And the left will rise up in protest because woman's right to sovereign control over her body was been violated, and the laws will likely reverse again, and we'll be back where we started.

So instead of insisting we have to "run for the rope" (i.e., change the laws), why not see what BOTH sides can come to that will make it far less likely a woman will ever have to face this choice? Can you imagine the reaction if someone from the right were to say, "You know, your right to make decisions about your own body DOES matter and DOES deserve to be respected, but I also believe the young life in you deserves to live. How could we achieve both?"

But no - the pervasive message from the right is "your body doesn't matter" and from the left it is "it's not a baby."

So yes, IMO, both sides should be ashamed of themselves for their entrenched, partisan positions with no willingnees to try to see it from the other side and find common ground, while babies die by the minute...

Not a valid analogy in my opinion.

[demi-conservative]

Umm... no. At no point did I say or imply I thought anyone was an idiot

Didn't say that.

or suggest that anything was magical - so you are adding things to my post I did not put there.

You live in fantasy of 'we can compromise on baby-killing!!!' There is no magical compromise.

And it is not clear to me that the position "abortion is a moral evil, with VERY few exceptions" is a "moderate" position. My "liberal" friends think I'm so far right on this one I am in danger of falling off the measuring stick, despite my observation that "with VERY few exceptions" means there are at least SOME people to the right of me (i.e., those who see no exceptions whatsoever).

Ask conservative friends of yours about position of yours that mothers having to carry babies to term is 'slavery'. What you do is try to straddle fence, and complain why most people don't do crazy idiotic straddling too.

[demi-conservative]

Let's clear up some things first. Enforcing law so that:

a) mothers carry children to term
b) fathers pay child support
c) parents raise children till they are adult
etc

is not slavery. It's not slavery because it's duty of theirs, that they can't just get rid of because 'I don't want it!!!! '

So, there is no slavery, and libtarded position you think we should compromise with is blown to pieces!

[demi-conservative]

"They actually meant 'separation of church and state', even though it wasn't written that way!!!"

Moderates: we must go by law as written, it's basic principle!!!!....except for separation of church and state, we must follow private letter of Jefferson's!!!

[carpedm9587]

Didn't say that.

The response left the implication - I just wanted to be clear it was not coming from me.

You live in fantasy of 'we can compromise on baby-killing!!!' There is no magical compromise.

At one time, Ghandi lived in a world where it was a "fantasy" to consider India would be free of British rule. MLK lived in a world where it was a "fantasy" to consider that we would see racial equivalence to any degree. Jesus lived in a world where it was a fantasy to think that god would be seen as a god of love. Nelson Mandela lived in a world where it was a fantasy to think apartheid would end.

Every movement begins with imagining what COULD be - so it begins with a fantasy. Hope is never false hope - it is just hope. (and no - I'm not equating myself to any of those men. I'm a nit posting on a forum. But even us nits can dream of a better way and a better day, as unlikely as it might be).

Ask conservative friends of yours about position of yours that mothers having to carry babies to term is 'slavery'. What you do is try to straddle fence, and complain why most people don't do crazy idiotic straddling too.

Actually, I straddle nothing. But I do agree that conservatives hate the concept that they are promoting a form of slavery - but they refuse to look at the other side just as equally as the left refuses to look at the right's side.

So ask yourself the following: IF the left's position that the embryo is NOT a life were true, would it not be consistent for them to see the government deciding what they can do with their own bodies is a form of slavery, and inappropriate intrusion of government into their personal life?

And I say to my friends on the right: IF the right's position that the embryo IS a human life were true, would it not be consistent for them to prize preserving it above all else?

Each side believes it is taking a moral position, on the basis of their beginning place. Each side is adamant in their refusal to open their eyes to the perspective of the other side, and commited to seeing those on the other side as "evil." Each side is entrenched to the point that they are unwilling to even TRY to find common ground that will reduce the rate of abortion dramatically.

So, each side is complicit in the status quo, IMO. Both sides are creating the situation we have: stalemate in conversation, and a dead child every 50 seconds. Four of them in the time it took me to type this. A few more in the time it will take you to respond, and tell me why your side is right and the other side is wrong - immoral - evil - etc.

[demi-conservative]

a fantasy. I'm a nit posting on a forum.

Glad you admit it!!

Moderator Notice

Changing a posters response like this when responding is lying unless you make note of what you are doing. Do not do this.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

Actually, I straddle nothing.

Actually yes. You try to believe at same time lib belief that conservatives think is way libtarded, and conservative belief that libs believe is way to the right. Straddling.

So ask yourself the following: IF the left's position that the embryo is NOT a life were true, would it not be consistent for them to see the government deciding what they can do with their own bodies is a form of slavery, and inappropriate intrusion of government into their personal life?

They can see whatever anti-science cowdung they've been brainwashed into, sure. But view of theirs shouldn't be allowed to affect law.

common ground that will reduce the rate of abortion dramatically.

"will"? "dramatically?" There's the magic thinking!

So, each side is complicit in the status quo, IMO. Both sides are creating the situation we have: stalemate in conversation, and a dead child every 50 seconds. Four of them in the time it took me to type this. A few more in the time it will take you to respond, and tell me why your side is right and the other side is wrong - immoral - evil - etc.

This doesn't mean what you think it does. It only shows how evil changing law to allow, also normalize abortion was, and how evil efforts to keep the law as it is are!

So many babies killed. Sad!