Election 2012 - Who to vote for?

  • Thread starter Thread starter edwest2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
Again, one would have to consider where the excessive speeding was being done to judge it as violating the 5th Commandment. On a race track, on an empty freeway, in downtown traffic, in the presence of people who might be in harm’s way. To an attorney, all things tend to be varying shades of gray, and so I’d not be able ordinarily to say that speeding violates the Commandment absent the circumstances.
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about ‘to an attorney.’ He’s not considering, in a professional position, The Fifth Commandment. We were, anyway, talking about morality and the Commandments. The Church herself considers the circumstances in the matter of violation of the Fifth Commandment, so I don’t know with whom you’re arguing. The example I gave you was a school zone (I thought); maybe I didn’t, but it’s what I meant. I could not justify to my confessor that my driving 75 mph in a school zone – absent escaping from severe danger or emergency – was not a sin against the Fifth Commandment. (Try to follow, Counsellor. :D) Maybe you could; that’s your business.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Yes. Libertarianism is the ultimate Pro-Everything-Choice party.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. That is libertinism. Big difference. Libertarians believe a couple of things:
  1. My body is mine and noone has the right to tell me how or what to do with my body, this is the essence of the Right to Life. To think otherwise is to condone slavery. One forfeits this right when they violate the rights of others in this regard.
  2. As an extension of my body, the fruit of my labor is also mine. I have a moral duty to assist others as I see fit and as I deem appropriate. To think otherwise is to condone theft.
  3. In exercising my right of life and property, I have no right to initiate violence against anyone else. This is called the Non-Aggression Principle. I have the right to respond with a level of violence that protects myself, my family, and my property. If you couple the Non-Aggression Principle, scientific fact, and the God given Right to Life, then it is easy to see that the authentic Libertarian principle on abortion is pro-life from conception to natural death.
From libertarianism comes the maxim: My right to swing my arm in the air stops at the end of your nose.

Libertarians are not chaos-anarchists. We are minarchists. We don’t believe in no government, because that always leads to brutish tyranny. We believe in the smallest government possible to protect and defend the rights of life, liberty, and property given to us by God.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I find Pat Buchanan to be one of the most lucid political analysts out there. I guess “nutter” is a matter of perspective. I find David Brooks to be a “nutter”.
Click to expand...
Pat Buchanan’s blog is one of the most interesting commentaries on the internet. Plus, both sides hate him so he must be on to something.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The example I gave you was a school zone (I thought); maybe I didn’t, but it’s what I meant.
Click to expand...
Okay. Got your meaning.
I could not justify to my confessor that my driving 75 mph in a school zone – absent escaping from severe danger or emergency – was not a sin against the Fifth Commandment.
Click to expand...
Okay again, though it’s not anything that I would think necessary to confess.
(Try to follow, Counsellor. :D) Maybe you could; that’s your business.
Click to expand...
I shall try to do so. 😉 🙂
 
eightandsand said:
Pat Buchanan’s blog is one of the most interesting commentaries on the internet. Plus, both sides hate him so he must be on to something.
Click to expand...
Conservatives and libertarians with no party affiliation admire Buchanan’s thorough analysis and out of the box thinking. Country Club Republicans and Democrats hate him.
 
LisaA said:
Your statement is beyond ridiculous…Obama and Romney the same on anything but both being males? Records identical? Let’s see Obama voted against the Babies Born Alive Act. Basically suggested that infanticide is something between “a woman and her doctor.” You keep posting old stuff that has been refuted time and time again. So I should believe your falsehoods and claims while ignoring well respected pro life organizations and indivduals? You must think we’re just idiots that would believe you over the likes of Abbey Johnson…

Foreign policy? Obama who obviously despises Israel, on record with a hot mic complaining about Netenyahu whereas Romney is a strong supporter and friend.

Bailouts? Romney opposed the GM bailout. I think we know where Obama stands.

I’m curious why you have such a bee in your bonnet about Romney that you think it’s fine just to make things up about him. Obama won’t win easily. I believe the American people have had enough “spreading the wealth” (mostly to HIS cronies and supporters), ineffective programs, green energy that means red ink, debt crisis, imperial dictates while ignoring the role of Congress, war against religious freedom…need I go on? Obama isn’t working…I can’t wait until November when they put a mic in front of Donald Trump and he can say “You’re FIRED!”

Lisa
Click to expand...
My statement was not “ridiculous” given Romeny’s record. See post #859 of this thread.

You ask why I have such a “bee in my bonnet about Romney.” Oh, I don’t know, maybe it has something to do with the insignificant fact that in 2005 (AFTER his alleged pro-life “conversion”) he decided that Catholic hospitals would be required to provide rape victims with the Morning After Pill, in violation of their consciences and their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. A true leader would have defended religiously-affliliated hospitals all the way to the Supreme Court. Maybe the “bee in my bonnet about Romney” has to do with the fact that Romneycare set the precedent for Obamacare, despite all of Romney’s fancy campaign maneuvering and rhetoric to the contrary (which is dutifully regurgitated on this forum as if it is gospel). Mabye the “bee in my bonnet about Romney” has something to do with the fact that he never stood a chance against Obama, yet was conitually propped-up from Day One as if he was the Republican Party’s best chance, much to the satisfaction of Liberal Media and the Democart Party.

Romney supported the TARP Bailout. The “but Romney opposed the GM Bailout” line that you parrot is more Romney campaign rhetoric.

On Foreign Policy, Obama and Romney are both foreign interventionists, in the worst traditions of this country. They only differ as to the scope and duration of the interventions. They both seem to confuse Israeli and Saudi (the Gulf’s worst tyrant) national security with American national security. It is just a matter of which one will bend over farther.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
No, it isn’t. That is libertinism. Big difference. Libertarians believe a couple of things:
  1. My body is mine and noone has the right to tell me how or what to do with my body, this is the essence of the Right to Life. To think otherwise is to condone slavery. One forfeits this right when they violate the rights of others in this regard.
  2. As an extension of my body, the fruit of my labor is also mine. I have a moral duty to assist others as I see fit and as I deem appropriate. To think otherwise is to condone theft.
  3. In exercising my right of life and property, I have no right to initiate violence against anyone else. This is called the Non-Aggression Principle. I have the right to respond with a level of violence that protects myself, my family, and my property. If you couple the Non-Aggression Principle, scientific fact, and the God given Right to Life, then it is easy to see that the authentic Libertarian principle on abortion is pro-life from conception to natural death.
From libertarianism comes the maxim: My right to swing my arm in the air stops at the end of your nose.

Libertarians are not chaos-anarchists. We are minarchists. We don’t believe in no government, because that always leads to brutish tyranny. We believe in the smallest government possible to protect and defend the rights of life, liberty, and property given to us by God.
Click to expand...
I agree but I know there are some pro choice libertarians or some who say I’m pro life but it to much government to make it illegal. The reason this happens is because they believe rights don’t apply to them because they aren’t human. This is the same across all political ideologies no sane person would be for the killing of innocent human beings. Why people are for abortion is because they believe it isn’t human
 
catholictiger said:
I agree but I know there are some pro choice libertarians or some who say I’m pro life but it to much government to make it illegal. The reason this happens is because they believe rights don’t apply to them because they aren’t human. This is the same across all political ideologies no sane person would be for the killing of innocent human beings. Why people are for abortion is because they believe it isn’t human
Click to expand...
Is there some magic act that turns the contents of a womans womb from a cantelope to a human during the passage through the birth canal?
 
catholictiger said:
I agree but I know there are some pro choice libertarians or some who say I’m pro life but it to much government to make it illegal. The reason this happens is because they believe rights don’t apply to them because they aren’t human. This is the same across all political ideologies no sane person would be for the killing of innocent human beings. Why people are for abortion is because they believe it isn’t human
Click to expand...
Yes. That is the very root of the problem. And, this includes the Christians on CAF who vote Democrat because they think making abortion illegal is not necessary, as long as you are trying to lessen abortion by throwing welfare money at people.

People who are “personally opposed” don’t get it. As you said, no one would be for abortion, if they recognized the basic scientific fact that abortion is killing an innocent, human being. 😦
 
rlg94086 said:
As you said, no one would be for abortion, if they recognized the basic scientific fact that abortion is killing an innocent, human being. 😦
Click to expand...
Actually, many are pro-death IN SPITE OF the basic scientific fact that abortion is killing an innocent human being. Anyone with a high school education knows that the embryo is a genetically distinct, living member of the human species (human) and exists in time and space (being). In fact, long before we had modern science to verify this fact, the ancients came to the same conclusion using basic Logic. The present conflict in modern society over moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, sexuality, etc. really goes back to the ancient rival moral arguements of Epicureanism and Christianity. When one doesn’t believe in God or his precepts, then it is Man who gets to determine who lives and who dies and everything else in between. It then simply becomes a competition for survival among the “fittest.”

Yet I would wager that most pro-aborts know that God exists. Most educated atheists that I have encountered also know that the God exists. It is not so much that they deny His existence (although publicly they put up a well choreographed charade) but rather they hate Him for their own existence in a painful world of suffering. They don’t realize that the pain and the suffering they blame on God is the result of sin or maybe they do, but don’t wish to give up the fleeting pleasures of the sinful life. Even some well-meaning pro-aborts, in their demonic way of thinking, actually believe that by killing an innocent human being they are doing him/her a favor by sparing them from a lifetime of pain and suffering. For them, it is a protest against their own self-hating existence, which they blame on God.
 
eightandsand said:
Actually, many are pro-death IN SPITE OF the basic scientific fact that abortion is killing an innocent human being. Anyone with a high school education knows that the embryo is a genetically distinct, living member of the human species (human) and exists in time and space (being). In fact, long before we had modern science to verify this fact, the ancients came to the same conclusion using basic Logic. The present conflict in modern society over moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, sexuality, etc. really goes back to the ancient rival moral arguements of Epicureanism and Christianity. When one doesn’t believe in God or his precepts, then it is Man who gets to determine who lives and who dies and everything else in between. It then simply becomes a competition for survival among the “fittest.”
Click to expand...
Actually, I’ve had arguements with plenty of liberals about the humanness of the zygote and embryo. They argue that neither are “fully” human. None of them can p(name removed by moderator)oint the arbitrary spot in between zygote and born baby where the “cantaloupe” (referencing Scott’s post :p) becomes a full human. They say that is a philosophical question. They don’t believe all humans have the same value…sort of like slaveholders and Nazis.
 
rlg94086 said:
Actually, I’ve had arguements with plenty of liberals about the humanness of the zygote and embryo. They argue that neither are “fully” human. None of them can p(name removed by moderator)oint the arbitrary spot in between zygote and born baby where the “cantaloupe” (referencing Scott’s post :p) becomes a full human. They say that is a philosophical question. They don’t believe all humans have the same value…sort of like slaveholders and Nazis.
Click to expand...
Next time you talk to them, remind them that the burden of proof rests with the one doing the killing, especially when they are unable to “p(name removed by moderator)oint the arbitrary spot.”

And of course “they don’t believe that all humans have the same value.” They don’t believe in God and therefore it is Man who gets to add the “value.”
 
eightandsand said:
Actually, many are pro-death IN SPITE OF the basic scientific fact that abortion is killing an innocent human being. Anyone with a high school education knows that the embryo is a genetically distinct, living member of the human species (human) and exists in time and space (being). In fact, long before we had modern science to verify this fact, the ancients came to the same conclusion using basic Logic. The present conflict in modern society over moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, eugenics, sexuality, etc. really goes back to the ancient rival moral arguements of Epicureanism and Christianity. When one doesn’t believe in God or his precepts, then it is Man who gets to determine who lives and who dies and everything else in between. It then simply becomes a competition for survival among the “fittest.”

Yet I would wager that most pro-aborts know that God exists. Most educated atheists that I have encountered also know that the God exists. It is not so much that they deny His existence (although publicly they put up a well choreographed charade) but rather they hate Him for their own existence in a painful world of suffering. They don’t realize that the pain and the suffering they blame on God is the result of sin or maybe they do, but don’t wish to give up the fleeting pleasures of the sinful life. Even some well-meaning pro-aborts, in their demonic way of thinking, actually believe that by killing an innocent human being they are doing him/her a favor by sparing them from a lifetime of pain and suffering. For them, it is a protest against their own self-hating existence, which they blame on God.
Click to expand...
the people like this will say that the are human, but they don’t have human rights. I have yet to meet a person who says I think the unborn have human rights and is human, and we should kill it. Because take that philosophy to people who pretty much the entire country sees as human, you could justify killing anyone. The only logical position they can hold is that of believing the unborn doesn’t have human rights. Meaning they are human but not humans with rights or they aren’t human.

the only people who could have a logical position of killing full human beings, is people who would also be for killing born human beings. They exist I don’t disagree but I don’t think they are sane. Keep in mind that this is probably less than 1% of the world’s population who hold this view.
 
rlg94086 said:
Actually, I’ve had arguements with plenty of liberals about the humanness of the zygote and embryo. They argue that neither are “fully” human.
Click to expand...
**I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder. **
(396 AD Jerome Letters 22:13).
 
eightandsand said:
And of course "they don’t believe in God and therefore it is Man who gets to add the “value.”
Click to expand...
That isn’t necessarily true. I know a number of Protestants and even Catholics - believers in God, all of them - who are willing to accept abortion, “not for themselves,” but as as a possibility for other women.

Not everyone cares what the Church’s position on abortion is, just because most of us do. 🤷
 
Mickey said:
That is tragic.
Click to expand...
No. It’s life. Just as Jews and Moslems don’t give much, if any, thought to what the Catholics or Protestants think, or the Church getting worked up much about what various Protestant positions are.
 
catholictiger said:
the people like this will say that the are human, but they don’t have human rights. I have yet to meet a person who says I think the unborn have human rights and is human, and we should kill it. Because take that philosophy to people who pretty much the entire country sees as human, you could justify killing anyone. The only logical position they can hold is that of believing the unborn doesn’t have human rights. Meaning they are human but not humans with rights or they aren’t human.

the only people who could have a logical position of killing full human beings, is people who would also be for killing born human beings. They exist I don’t disagree but I don’t think they are sane. Keep in mind that this is probably less than 1% of the world’s population who hold this view.
Click to expand...
The question of whether the unborn is “human being” is a scientific question that can be answered using basic Logic. The question of whether or not the unborn should be given legal rights as a “human person” has become a political question that has been answered by those in power.

The unborn are fully human and fully alive and therefore they can be*** nothing other than ***a human person. Human personhood is an unalienable, pre-political right originating in Nature (what the unborn is) rather than Convention. The functional criteria used by the pro-deathers to justify removing the unborn’s unalienable right to life are subjective and arbitrary.

The current culture war over abortion can be traced directly back to the ancient, rival arguments of Epicureanism and Christianity. The same battle that was being fought then is being fought now. People like Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are the modern heirs of Epicureanism. Once you embrace Atheism then it is only a matter of time before Man replaces God as the one who determines the “value” of life, born and unborn. All you have to do is open the newspaper to find evidence that there is not much value attached to the lives of either the unborn or the born in today’s society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top