Paul Ryan Discussion

[LisaA]

…** The point was simply to illustrate that pro-choice does not imply anything negative about the moral character of a person.) If **you disagree with the arguments I have given, you have to argue against them, not critize me for giving them. It doesn’t even make sense what you are doing.

No, the arguments do not imply that a baby becomes a person when born.

Having come from the pro abortion rights position, I don’t think holding that position means you are amoral on other subjects. However unless one is woefully ignorant about how human life is created (I was) that such a person would allow the arbitrary murder of an innocent human being says they do not think human beings have a right to life unless someone who has power agrees they have the right to life. That seems incredibly arbitrary and lacking in moral foundation.

I do believe that the only way otherwise decent people can justify this murder is to dehumanize the unborn. IOW the pregnant woman is not killing a person she is solving a problem. I think the key to ending this evil practice is education. I just hope people have open minds and open hearts or these words will be ignored.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

No Meltzerboy you are wrong. I believe that an unborn baby is human. It is part of my Catholic faith and I can explain, chapter and verse why according to my Catholic faith I hold that position.

However, when dealing with atheists, secularists and those who devalue human life due to an elitism, I try to used scientific arguments because arguments of faith are useless in the face of those who would support evil in the furtherance of a secular humanist agenda. Google Peter Singer for the poster child of this movement. He even thinks that parents should be able to kill their children during the first year. There is nothing you can say to someone like that and to pull out the Hitler card generally loses the argument even though I think the basic philosophy is the same. Unborn babies are not humans until they reach a certain stage. What is that stage? Well Meltzerboy it depends…and that’s called relativism.

I grew up around secular humanists, worshipping the god of science. I know how they think and I have long since rejected that cruel and inconsistent attitude.

Lisa

Lisa, I was specifically referring to Persuader’s mention of monozygotic twins and chimeras, which you apparently dismissed as “nutty” and irrelevant to the topic. As to religion, we’ve discussed our different religious views on the abortion issue before (several times!), so I won’t rehash that. Finally, the notion of cultural and moral relativism is a term that gets bandied about a lot. Actually, religious beliefs, as well as most other aspects of culture, also fit under the idea of relativism since they express their own views relative to the views of other beliefs. Relativism is not necessarily considered a bad thing.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, I was specifically referring to Persuader’s mention of monozygotic twins and chimeras, which you apparently dismissed as “nutty” and irrelevant to the topic. As to religion, we’ve discussed our different religious views on the abortion issue before (several times!), so I won’t rehash that. Finally, the notion of cultural and moral relativism is a term that gets bandied about a lot. Actually, religious beliefs, as well as most other aspects of culture, also fit under the idea of relativism since they express their own views relative to the views of other beliefs. Relativism is not necessarily considered a bad thing.

Look, Pursuader and others use anomolies and extremely rare situations to try to justify their position. Do I deny that such things occur? No. Is it relevant to the overall discussion? There are ALWAYS exceptions but they do not override the basic premise that all human beings are unique, that the point of conception is truly the only point in the development of the fetus that one can say OBJECTIVELY is a point of change from egg and sperm to a human being, an unborn human being yes, an undeveloped human being true, but this is the only time that both science and religion cross paths where you can determine a new human being was CREATED. Now that human being may never implant, never grow, never develop normally, may be aborted spontaneously or split into two or three human beings or as we hope he or she may be born some months later.

This is the ONLY POINT IN TIME THAT IS NOT RELATVE NOT ABITRARY. Unlike the arguments Persuader and others of his philosophy use to claim that one must be thinking, feeling, knowing to be truly human, this argument says a human being is created at a particular point in time and from that point of time until natural death, he or she should be treated as a human being.

I cannot fathom a Jew who knows his history supporting the attitude that the determinative issue is simply power. The power the woman ALONE has over the life and death of a child. The same power that allowed slavery and the haloucast, the power of life or death. How can you not choose life Meltzerboy? I am not being obtuse, I simply cannot understand this position from someone who is not a secular humanist.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

Look, Pursuader and others use anomolies and extremely rare situations to try to justify their position. Do I deny that such things occur? No. Is it relevant to the overall discussion? There are ALWAYS exceptions but they do not override the basic premise that all human beings are unique, that the point of conception is truly the only point in the development of the fetus that one can say OBJECTIVELY is a point of change from egg and sperm to a human being, an unborn human being yes, an undeveloped human being true, but this is the only time that both science and religion cross paths where you can determine a new human being was CREATED. Now that human being may never implant, never grow, never develop normally, may be aborted spontaneously or split into two or three human beings or as we hope he or she may be born some months later.

This is the ONLY POINT IN TIME THAT IS NOT RELATVE NOT ABITRARY. Unlike the arguments Persuader and others of his philosophy use to claim that one must be thinking, feeling, knowing to be truly human, this argument says a human being is created at a particular point in time and from that point of time until natural death, he or she should be treated as a human being.

I cannot fathom a Jew who knows his history supporting the attitude that the determinative issue is simply power. The power the woman ALONE has over the life and death of a child. The same power that allowed slavery and the haloucast, the power of life or death. How can you not choose life Meltzerboy? I am not being obtuse, I simply cannot understand this position from someone who is not a secular humanist.

Lisa

It is not the woman alone, in the sense I think you mean. It is the woman TOGETHER WITH her family, her pastor (priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc.), and her doctor. It is also not an issue of power as in the cases of slavery and the Holocaust, but an intimate, personal, often anguished decision that the government, I repeat, should STAY OUT OF. If we don’t want the government telling us how our money should be spent, which healthcare program we must be a member of, and how to practice our religion, we surely don’t want them involved in telling our families that a woman MUST bring her baby to term, especially in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, based on another person’s or group’s religious beliefs, however sincere and well-intentioned those beliefs may be.

 

[meltzerboy]

Paul Ryan’s Most Egregious Lie: He Never Ran a Marathon in Under Three Hours

gawker.com/5939846/paul-ryans-most-egregious-lie-he-never-ran-a-marathon-in-under-three-hours

I know this is all tongue-in-cheek; however, I must say that if this were in fact the most egregious lie told by Ryan or any other politician, I think our country would be in great shape!

 

[LisaA]

It is not the woman alone, in the sense I think you mean. It is the woman TOGETHER WITH her family, her pastor (priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc.), and her doctor. It is also not an issue of power as in the cases of slavery and the Holocaust, but an intimate, personal, often anguished decision that the government, I repeat, should STAY OUT OF. If we don’t want the government telling us how our money should be spent, which healthcare program we must be a member of, and how to practice our religion, we surely don’t want them involved in telling our families that a woman MUST bring her baby to term, especially in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, based on another person’s or group’s religious beliefs, however sincere and well-intentioned those beliefs may be.

Meltzerboy, either you are very very very naive or you are trying to hide behind the usual baloney about the 'agonizing decision." Abortion in this contry is after act birth control in the vast majority of cases. The baby does not result from rape, incest nor would carrying the pregnancy to term damage her health or risk her life. The vast majority of abortions occur because the baby comes at an inconvenient time. One well known testimony of a woman who had an abortion claimed she couldn’t envision a life where she had to buy large jars of mayo at Costco. A baby is an inconvenience and I am sure every woman who has had a child can attest that there are challenges. But is this inconvenience so great it’s worth killing a child? Many woman say yes…millions of them in fact.

Women are NOT consulting with their pastor or rabbi, they are not even contacting a doctor in the vast majority of cases. They call up Planned Parenthood, walk in, pay for the abortion, get a number and wait until it’s called. I have seen too many interviews with post abortive women, listened to Abby Johnson (who worked at PP), read too many statistics, to believe that the scenario you portray occurs in any but the rarest of cases.

Point two. NO ONE HAS ONE BIT OF POWER BUT THE WOMAN. PERIOD. One person decides on the life or death of the unborn baby. One person. No rabbi, no doctor, no pastor, no family friend, not the father, not her parents, no one can make or break this decision.

And point three, although you don’t seem to accept this reality, it is not a religious question, it is a human rights question. One of the most amazing testimonials I heard was by an atheist man who was horrified when his girlfriend had an abortion without consulting him. He was so shocked that he, as the father and willing to support both her and the child, had no legal right to interfere with her decision. He became a pro life activist and said everyone assumed he was Catholic or evangelical. He was not. Even as an atheist he felt the unborn child had the same human rights as he did.

If you do respond would you please respond without the prejudices and preconceived notions you expressed above. Why do you think that a child doesn’t have rights unless his mother allows him those rights? How can a Jew be so incredibly blase about wholesale slaughter of innocents? Are a few inches of birth canal the only thing that matters?

I truly don’t understand you. I want to think you are very young but based on your other posts I think you are my age or perhaps older. When I was a child I thought as a child…I’ve put away childish thoughts. Have you?
Lisa

 

[fix]

It has nothing to do with labels, but with properties. What would happen, do you think, if a superintelligent chimp was born and could talk to us and socialize with us - would that chimp have the right to life? I think most people would think so. But why? The chimp would not be human, but he would be a person. That’s why.

Is this a joke? First, when a chimp can speak then we can discuss it. Until then it is a silly argument. Humans are not animals.

Right. So, if we have monozygotic twins, it doesn’t matter if one of them dies since the distinct DNA survives? DNA has been digitalized and brought to life. Granted, it’s only been done with bacteria, but we have a proof of principle. DNA is code. So, presumably, we could digitalize human DNA, change the code, and bring it to life. Would we be obligated to bring to term every possible variation of the code? No, it seems that the uniqueness of DNA isn’t the real issue. If we were to clone humans beings, it seems equally strange to say that those beings would not have a right to life simply because their DNA was not unique.

The context of unique DNA regarding a mother and her unborn child reveals that two lives are present.

So what kind of cells become a human being? The embryonic stem cells divide and multiply, eventually specializing and resulting in a body with a brain. Skin cells, and other cells, can be manipulated into behaving much like embryonic stem cells. In the right environment, and with the right technology, perhaps a person could emerge. Do skin cells deserve the right-to-life because of this theoretical potential? Why not? If they could potentially become a human being, why not?

We are not talking about potential people, but real people that exist.

No, it doesn’t measure humans by usefulness. What is the difference between a fly and a chimp? Are they of equal value? If not, why not? If a superintelligent chimp was born – a chimp who could talk with us, share with us, be a person with us – it would be a monstrous thing to kill him. Why? Because of his properties. What is the moral difference between a rock, a plant, a bacteria, a fly, a rat, a pig, a chimp, and a human? Moral value corresponds with mental properties. What properties? The ability to experience existence. To feel, to suffer, to enjoy, to think, to be. Something has to matter to them. For a rock, there is nothing. For a bacteria, close to nothing. For a fly, a little bit more. For a rat, a bit more still. And so on.

Your standard is aribtrary and reductionist. Humans are unique. Why bring up animal examples?

Dementia slowly destroys the brain, and by implication, it destroys the mind. What better evidence for saying that the mind resides in the brain? As I said earlier, it’s difficult to know what mental states you are still capable of with severe dementia or severe mental impairment, but we can still acknowledge that something is not right. At some point, the person with severe dementia is lost. Everyone observing a family member with dementia can attest to that. The person is slowly dying and leaving this world. He loses himself slowly but surely, and in the last stages, not much is left, if anything at all.

This is kind of how abortion works in most countries. Abortion is restricted, and those restrictions are based on (sometimes outdated science) on fetal development.

Really? What about the arguments then? Your standard is presumably established by proper arguments, and not merely «a matter of opinion». Why would you think it’s different for pro-choice? It’s not, of course. I have already given some arguments, and none of those arguments are simply «a matter of opinion». And what do you mean when you talk about subjective standards?

So, far your arguments seem to be that depending on if one can or cannot experience life, as you think they should, is the criteria to determine if they should live.

 

[oldcelt]

Humans are not animals.

Really, that’s news to me, and I would venture most in the scientific community…Our faith tells us that we have the “divine spark,” but in every other way we are very much animals…mammals to be specific.

John

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is not the woman alone, in the sense I think you mean. It is the woman TOGETHER WITH her family, her pastor (priest, minister, rabbi, imam, etc.), and her doctor. It is also not an issue of power as in the cases of slavery and the Holocaust, but an intimate, personal, often anguished decision that the government, I repeat, should STAY OUT OF. If we don’t want the government telling us how our money should be spent, which healthcare program we must be a member of, and how to practice our religion, we surely don’t want them involved in telling our families that a woman MUST bring her baby to term, especially in cases of rape, incest, and the health of the mother, based on another person’s or group’s religious beliefs, however sincere and well-intentioned those beliefs may be.

Of course, most laws have some origins in religious belief. The question isn’t whether religious beliefs should or should not enter into the laws, but which ones ought to, to what degree, and why.

It’s interesting to read old, old legal cases. A great deal of what we now consider to be “secular law” was consciously and intentionally derived from religious tenets; things as seemingly secular as commercial law. Long ago, they owned up to it. Now, of course, they don’t.

 

[fix]

Really, that’s news to me, and I would venture most in the scientific community…Our faith tells us that we have the “divine spark,” but in every other way we are very much animals…mammals to be specific.

John

Humans are rational.

If you want to think of yourself as an animal that is your choice. Humans are made in God’s image.

 

[LisaA]

Is this a joke? First, when a chimp can speak then we can discuss it. Until then it is a silly argument. Humans are not animals.

The context of unique DNA regarding a mother and her unborn child reveals that two lives are present.

We are not talking about potential people, but real people that exist.

Your standard is aribtrary and reductionist. Humans are unique. Why bring up animal examples?

So, far your arguments seem to be that depending on if one can or cannot experience life, as you think they should, is the criteria to determine if they should live.

Fix thanks so much. You said this much more clearly and using a lot less verbiage! The arguments using wildly unlikely scenarios, hair splitting, and make believe stories are specious once you look at them more closely.

In reality, the whole ‘pro abortion rights’ position is simply a matter of might makes it right. The mother has the power and no restraints by society or other parties who should have an interest and influence (the father for one). Those who support the woman’s right to make this decision must dehumanize the child or they cannot even support their own position.

The scary thing is that given history and the horrors unchecked power have caused in other circumstances, some are very quick to jump on the “they aren’t really human” bandwagon.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Of course, most laws have some origins in religious belief. The question isn’t whether religious beliefs should or should not enter into the laws, but which ones ought to, to what degree, and why.

It’s interesting to read old, old legal cases. A great deal of what we now consider to be “secular law” was consciously and intentionally derived from religious tenets; things as seemingly secular as commercial law. Long ago, they owned up to it. Now, of course, they don’t.

True enough. I thought a lot about this, particularly given Meltzerboy’s theory that in protecting unborn life we are “forcing our religion on someone.” Obviously I am opposed to forcing everyone to adhere to Catholic teaching, that are specifically Catholic. IOW I don’t think Jews or Protestants or atheists must go to Mass or Reconciliation.

But there are many “Catholic” beliefs that are consistently found in other religions or in secular law. I suspect the laws against murder for example, are based on a religious foundation. It’s not simply a Catholic teaching.

Further our history is filled with those who stood up for the rights of others who were not trying to force their religion on anyone even if there was a religious basis to their action. Was overturning slavery “forcing religion” on slaveholders or was it just offering those who were born into or sold into slavery the same human rights those slaveholders had. Ditto with our more recent Civil Rights movement. Yes MLKJr was a pastor (something the Left tries hard to forget!) and spoke as a pastor with references to God. But were all those who worked for the civil rights of blacks forcing a religion on the white population.

Again I don’t understand how the two issues can be so easily mistaken as equivalent. Protecting unborn life is no more forcing a religious practice than was protecting blacks from the kind of racial bigotry they experienced.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

True enough. I thought a lot about this, particularly given Meltzerboy’s theory that in protecting unborn life we are “forcing our religion on someone.” Obviously I am opposed to forcing everyone to adhere to Catholic teaching, that are specifically Catholic. IOW I don’t think Jews or Protestants or atheists must go to Mass or Reconciliation.

But there are many “Catholic” beliefs that are consistently found in other religions or in secular law. I suspect the laws against murder for example, are based on a religious foundation. It’s not simply a Catholic teaching.

Further our history is filled with those who stood up for the rights of others who were not trying to force their religion on anyone even if there was a religious basis to their action. Was overturning slavery “forcing religion” on slaveholders or was it just offering those who were born into or sold into slavery the same human rights those slaveholders had. Ditto with our more recent Civil Rights movement. Yes MLKJr was a pastor (something the Left tries hard to forget!) and spoke as a pastor with references to God. But were all those who worked for the civil rights of blacks forcing a religion on the white population.

Again I don’t understand how the two issues can be so easily mistaken as equivalent. Protecting unborn life is no more forcing a religious practice than was protecting blacks from the kind of racial bigotry they experienced.

Lisa

If Congress enacts legislation that bans all abortions, including cases of rape and incest, however infrequent they may occur compared to abortion on demand, or if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, making all abortion illegal, that, to my way of thinking, is forcing a particular religious belief on everyone. My religion permits abortion in such cases, and when a mother’s life is in jeopardy, (Orthodox) Judaism requires abortion. And Judaism is not the only religion that thinks this way. However, which religion can honestly validate the Holocaust or slavery accompanied by lynchings?

 

[rlg94086]

If Congress enacts legislation that bans all abortions, including cases of rape and incest, however infrequent they may occur compared to abortion on demand, or if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, making all abortion illegal, that, to my way of thinking, is forcing a particular religious belief on everyone. My religion permits abortion in such cases, and when a mother’s life is in jeopardy, (Orthodox) Judaism requires abortion.

It isn’t “forcing a particular religious belief on everyone.” It would be applying agreed upon legislation to the entire population. There are religions that allow bigamy and polygamy. Why do you feel it was okay to “force” monogamy on them.

 

[meltzerboy]

It isn’t “forcing a particular religious belief on everyone.” It would be applying agreed upon legislation to the entire population. There are religions that allow bigamy and polygamy. Why do you feel it was okay to “force” monogamy on them.

Who said I felt it was, so long as no one is hurt by it? Agreed upon legislation based on a particular religious belief.

Robert, you must have been waiting in the bushes for my post! LOL I didn’t have time to add the finishing touches.

 

[rlg94086]

Who said I felt it was, so long as no one is hurt by it?
Robert, you must have been waiting in the bushes for my post! LOL I didn’t have time to add the finishing touches.

Oh, I didn’t know you were in favor of polygamy.

Everything is relative, I guess…

 

[ProVobis]

It continually fascinates me that, for some, when science is beneficial to supporting the arguments of those on the pro-life side of the abortion issue (as well as other issues), they explain their position by referring to science; whereas when science can be used to facilitate expressing an opposing viewpoint, they decry science.

When the data doesn’t fit the curve, you debunk the data.

 

[meltzerboy]

Oh, I didn’t know you were in favor of polygamy.

Everything is relative, I guess…

Not EVERYTHING is relative. But I do believe the religious liberty of all people is paramount, and please don’t point to Ancient Pagan animal sacrifice, which would be destructive to people, animals, and society. I would even go so far as to defend Satanism, provided it did not interfere with the practice of other religions or use brainwashing techniques to recruit members.

 

[JimG]

If Congress enacts legislation that bans all abortions, including cases of rape and incest, however infrequent they may occur compared to abortion on demand, or if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, making all abortion illegal, that, to my way of thinking, is forcing a particular religious belief on everyone. My religion permits abortion in such cases, and when a mother’s life is in jeopardy, (Orthodox) Judaism requires abortion. And Judaism is not the only religion that thinks this way. However, which religion can honestly validate the Holocaust or slavery accompanied by lynchings?

Overturning Roe v Wade would not make all abortions illegal. It would simply return the matter to the States. R v W, after all, had the effect of overturning all 50 states’ laws on abortion, not all of which were the same. It is not likely that most states would prohibit all abortion with no exceptions, for example, to save the mother’s life. It must be admitted that if abortion were prohibted except for those cases, abortion would drop by 99%. Currently, R v W makes most limtations on abortion unconstitutional, which is simply abhorrent.

 

[rlg94086]

Not EVERYTHING is relative. But I do believe the religious liberty of all people is paramount, and please don’t point to Ancient Pagan animal sacrifice, which would be destructive to people, animals, and society. I would even go so far as to defend Satanism, provided it did not interfere with the practice of other religions or use brainwashing techniques to recruit members.

So, you would impose restrictions on brainwashing and animal sacrifice (Satanists do that as well, not just “Ancient Pagans.”). It’s good to know you have limits. Some of us have limits on the the taking of innocent human life.