Pope: 1. Capital Punishment - no 2. Iraq war - no 3. stop 100% of abortions - yes (ie does not support partial ban) Can't be 100% certain but I'm pretty sure the Pope does NOT support any form of abortion. Could be wrong but I doubt it. Can't speak for the other churches but again...
i misunderstood you. i thought you were saying you could not find a religious group that was against capital punishment, iraq war and abortion. i thought you were saying it was hypocritical to be against abortion and for capital punishment. my point was to show you there are many who don't fit in your category of hypocrisy...many who are against death penalty/war/and abortion.
But I didn't say anything about needing an ammendment...you did. I was defending the need to implement an ammendment because the existing framework is sufficient enough. EDIT: Even in that quote, I very cleary said that the constitutional spirit is there to protect eqality and freedom. Yes it profers some basic examples such as the 1st Amendment but the spirit of the document is everlasting. Freedom and equality. Only ONE ammendment has ever limited freedom and equality and it didn't last. Now W is proposing a second such ammendment, gay marriage, and I oppose an ammendment for the same reason. It is a limiter...not an enabler. What you are supporting is a "limiter." Since we have ways, such as the 95-10 initiative that IS an enabler, I'd prefer we go that route, as Americans.
what?? you said the changes made have been amendments made to sustain principles. i'm saying that those principles are clearly changing. what was once justified under the Constitution is no longer...but tomorrow, might be "unjustified" again. i'm saying that changes in interpretation have been made absent any real amendment to the constitution. so you're looking at the same document and at one time saying that it says X...and then next time saying that it says Y. when you start reading in to the Constitution more than is actually enumerated there...more than is actually stated there...then you end up with this situation. where it means something different for each generation...which ultimately makes it mean very little at all.
Yes, there are SOME groups. But I get the sense, and I could be wrong, that many Americans are hypocrital, in that sense. IF you support the Iraq war and the death penalty but do not support abortion, only then are you hypocrital.
We have many of our freedoms compromised: speed limits, taking what is not ours, et al. You try and make it sound as if nothing in life is restricted when in fact most things in life are restricted. So a few tighter restrictions where it comes to saving an innocent life is not the beginning of the end for The American Republic. Partial-birth abortions are more of a horror in concept than in actuality so that is not much of a compromise. Who has objected to programs that would help to reduce unwanted pregnancies? If those are your compromises, most of us have been there for a long time! Your idea of compromise seems to be to maintain the status quo.
I said the ONLY changes that have been made, bar one, are to sustain those principles. I'm not suggesting we need to change it everytime there is a constitutional question. In the case Roe V. Wade, the case was solid enough that it could be upheld within the spirit of what was already existing. Yes, specific language isn't there about abortion...but that isn't necessary...and that's my point. Since the constitution is ONLY a framework that outlines the spirit of freedom and equality, all judgements need to be made within those guiding principals. Placing such limits on Americans does not preserve a basic freedom that if you want to hit yourself in the arm with a baseball bat, you are free todo so...and nobody else can tell you otherwise. No, the wording may be updated to clarify the principals...but the basic premise of equality and freedom are everlasting. Highly debatable. And that is what is at issue. Freedom and equality is a basic human right and should be protected at all costs. Any ammendments or laws should always, first and foremost, be there to protect freedom and equality.
1. PCUSA, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Episcopal Church, Roman Catholic Church....that's a pretty significant list there, krosfyah. lots of people. 2. I don't understand that. I am definitely against the death penalty. But I see an entirely different argument related to that than to abortion. Entirely different. When a society determines that someone has done something heinous enough to warrant death, there is a finding of guilt in a court. That's entirely different than what people see from an innocent child living in a womb...who didn't CHOOSE to be there, anyway. I'm with ya...the death penalty sucks. But I don't think the two issues are that simplistically linked.
Wrong. At the same time you must protect the freedoms of other living people. Taking what is not ours is an infraction on the freedoms of others. If I want to hit myself with a bat, you have no right to tell me otherwise. I didn't say partial-birth abortions....I said partial ban on abortions...big big big big big difference. No, because the status quo clearly isn't working, is it? I'm suggesting we learn from our mistakes in the existing programs and ALL get behind a larger movement and push for something bigger.
1. And MY point is that it's the VERY SAME LANGUAGE IN THE VERY SAME CONSTITUTION which, before Roe, the Courts said did not conflict with state legislation restricting abortions. 2. You have to wear a seatbelt. Only you will be hurt by not doing it. Law requires it anyway. Unconstitutional? My freedoms are certainly limited. 3. The Constituition isn't merely about equality and freedom. Hell, the word "equality" doesn't even appear until 1868, with the passage of the 14th Amendment under the "equal protection clause". The Constitution only states what the government can and can not do. It refers to rights that pre-exist the Constitution, which are given to you by your Creator (whoever that might be). 4. Liberty is certainly protected. My concern is that it's not being protected AT ALL for some. To the point where they're being killed. Which brings us right back to the heart of this issue, anyway. And I know you disagree with that.
I agree that they are NOT that simplistically linked. But they ARE realistically linked because the death penatly is so poorly implemented, IMO, that the end result is the same. The mantra, "Error on the side of life" does not hold water in our current system of the death penalty. I don't see anybody on the right rallying around when a mentally r****ded kid is put to death. Yes, SOME groups oppose all three. I'm not talking about them. I'm saying MANY Americans DON"T oppose all three...they pick and chose. That isn't erroring on the side of life and its hypocritical.
<b>Originally posted by krosfyah Wrong. At the same time you must protect the freedoms of other living people. Taking what is not ours is an infraction on the freedoms of others. If I want to hit myself with a bat, you have no right to tell me otherwise.</b> ... and approximately half of Americans think that that creature in the womb is a human. Further, you can't prove that it is not; you only have your opinion that you are basing life-and-death decisions on. So yes that is exactly the infraction that some of us here have been objecting to all along. <b>I didn't say partial-birth abortions....I said partial ban on abortions...big big big big big difference.</b> Sorry I misread. You say "ban on abortions" while I say "right to life." <b>No, because the status quo clearly isn't working, is it? I'm suggesting we learn from our mistakes in the existing programs and ALL get behind a larger movement and push for something bigger.</b> You think that there are but two problems, while I see a crucial third: 1) too many unwanted pregnancies, 2) too many abortions, and 3) too many dead babies. The status quo is what the law you are defending Roe v. Wade has brought us.
But you can't prove its human either and approximately half of Americans think the other way too. Since at least a majority or almost a majority (I haven't seen the most recent polling on this issue) support having abortion at some level a blanket ban will not work. Its the same reason Prohibition failed because it ended up that a huge percentage of Americans actually wanted to drink and didn't think there was anything wrong with it. This isn't to deny your belief but just to point out that you will need far more than 50% of the country to agree that abortion is wrong to have a ban that can be practically implemented. That's why absolutist politics and rhetoric won't work, for either side, but there are practical ways of addressing the situation. I think reasonable compromises limiting abortion can be reached but beyond the legal side both pro-lifers and pro-choicers can work on reforming adoption laws to make adoptions easier. Address women's access to health care and poverty issues, educate and counsel people about sexuality, provide child care so its not as much a burden raising a child while keeping a job or going to school and so on. There's tons of issues out there that lead women to choose abortion and if those can be addressed then abortion will go down. Absolutist rhetoric and politicizing the issue just antagonizes the other side from helping with dealing with those issues.
My argument is to err on the side of caution-- we "may" have a life that we are terminating. Again, how do you compromise? What one side sees as precioius life the other sides sees as a clump of cells no different than the cells of a spoiled chicken breast in the fridge. Toss it! And again, the mess we are in is due to Roe v Wade. The other thing to point out is that half that supports abortion doesn't know anything for sure. They have an opinion that is self-serving. My opinion that that is a life growing in that womb serves me in no way whatsoever-- unless it is my child, of course.
Yes, that is right. It is opinion. Both yours and mine. Therefore, I can't see limiting constitutional rights to freedom based on opinion...particularly when we can address it other ways. I don't see the differnece between #2 and #3 since they are fundamentally linked in a direct cause/effect relationship. But if we stopped 100% of item #1, problems #2 and #3 go away 100%...all while protecting the freedom of Americans. And if we stopped 100% of #2, that does NOT stop #1 or #3. Abortions would still occur illeagally or on foreign soils. And we still have the social problems of what to do with all these extra babies. Yup...and all the social programs that have been implemented since. And clearly the existing set up social programs aren't too effective because there is no unified/comprehensive effort.
But again unless you can convince a large majority of Americans any ban will not be practical. (sidenote) Do you support invitro fertilization? Standard practice of invitro fertilization requires the production of several fertilized embryos with most discarded like the spoiled chicken breast in the fridge. The point is that you can work towards ways to reducing abortions in the first place. I understand that under pro-life thinking that means there are still people being killed but at least that's getting you somewhere. I don't think its mutually exclusive that you can address the issues I pointed out and still work for ending legal abortion but that at least there you are making progress and reducing the overall amount of aboriton. For that matter even a partial ban will shift the terms of the debate and provide the basis for a gradual shift in thinking. Your position seems more along the lines of all or nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the good. But you've stated you don't know anything for sure since your view is opinion also. For that matter as someone who wants to end abortion your view is self-serving also since that's your stated goal. If you argued that Roe should be overturned because its bad law, something that I somewhat agree with, and left out whether life starts at conception or not then I would say your position isn't self-serving.
<b>Originally posted by Sishir Chang But again unless you can convince a large majority of Americans any ban will not be practical. </b> We talk a lot about education around here. Education about the formation of a new life would dispel a lot of the conveniently-held views, I think. <b>(sidenote) Do you support invitro fertilization? Standard practice of invitro fertilization requires the production of several fertilized embryos with most discarded like the spoiled chicken breast in the fridge.</b> I'm not in favor of anything that disposes of life-- except war where and when necessary. <b>The point is that you can work towards ways to reducing abortions in the first place. I understand that under pro-life thinking that means there are still people being killed but at least that's getting you somewhere. I don't think its mutually exclusive that you can address the issues I pointed out and still work for ending legal abortion but that at least there you are making progress and reducing the overall amount of aboriton. For that matter even a partial ban will shift the terms of the debate and provide the basis for a gradual shift in thinking.</b> Well, all the pro-Choice people who claim to not be in favor of abortions have been doing just that, right?! <b>Your position seems more along the lines of all or nothing. The perfect is the enemy of the good.</b> Dead or alive. There's not much wriggle room... <b>But you've stated you don't know anything for sure since your view is opinion also.</b> I was being coy. I'm quite sure that the miracle of the creation of physical life has a spiritual birth as well. To me it takes a supreme kind of arrogance to doubt that. The DNA speaks of humanity and nothing else. <b>For that matter as someone who wants to end abortion your view is self-serving also since that's your stated goal. If you argued that Roe should be overturned because its bad law, something that I somewhat agree with, and left out whether life starts at conception or not then I would say your position isn't self-serving.</b> I was talking about self-serving with regard to the life in question not to the general issue. That's why I qualified it to say "except mine."
Ok giddyup, You've officially worn me down. I'll just add these parting words. America gave you the right to assert your opinion on this matter. If you lived in another country, they may kill you for simply expressing yourself. I always remember that as I take this right VERY seriously. Don't be so dismissive about undermining basic rights of freedom...because sometime in the future you might be on the other side of the next issue. It is for this reason that I am looking for a solution to the problem but done within our existing context. And that is the key. If I didn't think we could get it done otherwise, then maybe I'd support a ban...but I don't think that is the case. My argument is stronger because I firmly beleive, and I'm not alone, that more lives will be saved by implementing strong programs to target unwanted pregnancies. Such a program would have an affect that cross America's boarders while the "ban" solution would only have a partial affect in America. So there you have it. If you lobby to take rights away from Americans, be careful about the precedent you set. What will be next?
