OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 06:05:05 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Orthodoxy and Abortion  (Read 57796 times) Average Rating: 1
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Theognosis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 248


« Reply #225 on: February 15, 2008, 10:32:21 PM »

Agreed, I don't think I ever claimed to speak for the Church.

It would help us a great deal if you had that DISCLAIMER in all your posts.

angel

BTW, how's your front yard?

Grin
 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #226 on: February 15, 2008, 10:50:35 PM »

Those are pretty isolated situations.  The point remains that for the average woman in Ceausescu's Romania, abortion was illegal yet was also routine.  There was a recent study that's already been linked in the other threads on abortion about legality doing little to nothing to affect the actual rate of abortions in a country.  That is why I still don't see why, and nobody here has made a case for, using abortion legislation as a litmus test.   And quite frankly, I think collaboration with the securitate is far more repulsive than just about anything else.
Yes, foul things have a tendency to congeal.

No, they were not as isolated as you would make it, nor was abortion as routine as you imply (though the desire for it was perhaps more than the incidence).

If you look at case law on various subjects, say for instance marriage, there is an oft repeated reference to public policy.  Polygamy, for instance, is against public policy.  When the judiciary oversteps its bounds under the American system, saner courts have noted that is the legislature, not the judiciary, which sets public policy.  In this vein falls the prohibition of abortion. It says something about you as a society (something certain political types harp on when it comes to, say, universal insurance).


Quote
Relevance?  The passage in question is not about political power.  The Christians in question had no political power.
If you were so convinced of that, why did you ask for a sharia verse in the first place?

 
Quote
It was about allowing someone with non-christian values to teach and corrupt the local Christian community.
Maybe you missed this:
 26 ‘He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; 27 AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father.
And the Great Commission:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

 
Quote
Again who here has said that abortion is an acceptable choice for Orthodox Christians? 
I'm saying here that abortion is not an acceptable choice of anyone.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2008, 10:54:50 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #227 on: February 15, 2008, 10:56:24 PM »

This is probably a really dumb question, but I'm pretty out of date regarding specific tests that are available during pregnancy. Is it possible for anyone to know with absolute certainty that they are going to give birth to a "defective" (in this case, deaf) child? 

Does it matter?

My son suffers a fatal kidney disease that has robbed him of his hearing.  I still would have had him if I'd known.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #228 on: February 15, 2008, 11:21:22 PM »



*in a small number of cases the pill can (could) lead the already-fertilized fetus to not implant.

Not so. There are 3-4 standard mechanisms of the typical birth control pill used in the US and other developed nations (and now handed to lesser developed countries)
Only one most folks want to hear about is the prevention of ovulation, therefore no egg can be fertilized. If it stopped there we would be fine. However the levels of hormones in the pill go so far as to make the birth canal a hostile environment to sperm by increasing the acidity there, causing the lining of the fallopian tubes to become think and hostile, and lining the uterus with a thick hostile film -should the fertiled egg make it past all other barriers. When a woman stops taking the pill she frequently has to spend months on end getting all of this mucus like build up out of her system-again depending on the maker of the pill and which pills in the line up they were on.
This is why so many people are opposed to them. Breakthrough pregnancies are actually occuring up to 8 months of the year, meaning a fertilized and living egg was washed away with the standard cycle and the woman never knew.

The reason the breakthrough level is now so high is because they have had to keep reducing and reformulation the hormone ratios as the first bc pills killed several women. My mother was in on the tests of the originals and she nearly died. Wiped out her immune system for a good while as well, and she miscarried twice afterwards.
This is a pet peeve of mine, sorry to give you guys so much info but consider yourself learned now.  Shocked
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #229 on: February 15, 2008, 11:23:45 PM »

They can test for nearly anything. In fact, you can thru egg harvesting, sperm harvesting and invitro fertilization have a nearly "perfect" child. Couples that are carriers of Tay Sachs for example, often select babies that are not afflicted with this malady...the list can go on and on.
Logged
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #230 on: February 15, 2008, 11:26:48 PM »

Not to mention you can gain a tremendous amount of weight, become a bitch nearly 24/7 and possibly become completely infertile on hormonal birth control.

Even the "mini pill" which is marketed to breastfeeding moms is awful.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #231 on: February 15, 2008, 11:37:40 PM »

Condemning something doesn't mean you want to put it into law.  More than anything else, the Church needs to make a stand and guide her flock, especially in these desperate times.

OK I WILL ASK AGAIN, WHO IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH HAS CONDONED ABORTION?

If you look at case law on various subjects, say for instance marriage, there is an oft repeated reference to public policy.  Polygamy, for instance, is against public policy.  When the judiciary oversteps its bounds under the American system, saner courts have noted that is the legislature, not the judiciary, which sets public policy.  In this vein falls the prohibition of abortion. It says something about you as a society (something certain political types harp on when it comes to, say, universal insurance).

I think the same principle applies with polygamy.  The practice tends to go away on its own under the right social conditions.  And I'm not so sure that current policy / enforcement is really addressing the issue with FLDS.  With immigrants who bring polygamy to the states, it tends to go away on its own.

Quote
Maybe you missed this:
 26 ‘He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; 27 AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father.
And the Great Commission:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

I think the first one refers to the ministry of the church and is not political.  And both, the point is to preach Christianity to people, not some political ideology that is currently in vogue among the religious right.  We preach Christianity by living the Christian life and sharing our Gospel, not creating another system of dhminitude.

Quote
I'm saying here that abortion is not an acceptable choice of anyone.

Prostitution, substance abuse, pornography, etc. etc. are not acceptable for anyone, but that still doesn't mean it is practical, nor even the intention of Christianity to create a political system that forces people to comply. 
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #232 on: February 16, 2008, 12:31:16 AM »

Does it matter?

My son suffers a fatal kidney disease that has robbed him of his hearing.  I still would have had him if I'd known.

That isn't the point of your post. You seem to indicate that the women you mentioned were having abortions to prevent the possibility of children with defects....if I read it right.

It doesn't "matter" per se, but I'd be interested in discovering how such defects could be discovered during pregnancy so that a "no children with defects" policy could be implimented. Or did the women just decide to have their children aborted "just in case".

Just trying to get some clarity on your post, actually.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #233 on: February 16, 2008, 12:34:26 AM »

I'm saying here that abortion is not an acceptable choice of anyone.

So you would deny any women the choice to have an abortion in the event (albet it rare) of a pregnancy that would cost her her life?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #234 on: February 16, 2008, 01:01:36 AM »

That isn't the point of your post. You seem to indicate that the women you mentioned were having abortions to prevent the possibility of children with defects....if I read it right.

Whether she had abortions or not I don't know.  I do know that she had some sort of certificate that if she wanted one, she could have it, state approved.  The state decided that it didn't want her children, so it was OK if she wanted to abort them.  Otherwise, every Romanian woman was expected to have 5 children (after which she too, if I remember correctly, could have abortions, having done her patriotic duty to the state).

Quote
It doesn't "matter" per se, but I'd be interested in discovering how such defects could be discovered during pregnancy so that a "no children with defects" policy could be implimented. Or did the women just decide to have their children aborted "just in case".


The determination, from what I was told, was pretty automatic (to give you an idea of what we are dealing with, women in Romania at work once a month were lined up and inspected (examined is perhaps not the right term) for pregnancy and signs of abortion).  Two deaf kids, the certificate was yours.  Life wasn't valuable enough to worry about the testing being right.

So you would deny any women the choice to have an abortion in the event (albet it rare) of a pregnancy that would cost her her life?

I avoid that slippery slope, making <2% the rule.

If in treatment of a woman for a, say, tubal pregnancy, and the child dies/is killed as a result, such is the nature of the beast.  In any case both would probably die. So one life is lost while trying to save another.  Such is life.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 01:05:54 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #235 on: February 16, 2008, 01:05:16 AM »

I've been told I can't report my post to the moderator "that doesn't make sense!" police

Perhaps I suffer self hatred.

Perhaps I have my inner voice yearning to turn myself in.

Perhaps I WANT TO DELETE A DUPLICATE POST...

is that too much to ask?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 01:09:32 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #236 on: February 16, 2008, 02:16:04 AM »

I avoid that slippery slope, making <2% the rule.

How do you deal with what you stated; "I'm saying here that abortion is not an acceptable choice of anyone" when you admit there are <2% of women who find themselves faced with a life-threathening pregnancy? The <2% might not seem very significant on paper, but that figure represents actual human beings. How about you forget the number for a moment and think of the person involved; your wife, daughter, sister or someone else you love. Such is life, doesn't seem to be a particularly caring attitude toward the women who find themselves in the <2% bracket.

 
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 02:16:51 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #237 on: February 16, 2008, 02:55:40 AM »

How do you deal with what you stated; "I'm saying here that abortion is not an acceptable choice of anyone" when you admit there are <2% of women who find themselves faced with a life-threathening pregnancy? The <2% might not seem very significant on paper, but that figure represents actual human beings. How about you forget the number for a moment and think of the person involved; your wife, daughter, sister or someone else you love. Such is life, doesn't seem to be a particularly caring attitude toward the women who find themselves in the <2% bracket.

 

I'm not even sure it makes 2%.

I'm quite sure that over 2% of abused children, wives and husbands (yes, they exist: mandatory reporting has revealed not a small group at all) might be justified in killing the abuser.  Do we legalize familiar murder?

Btw, such is life refered to the case where the baby is lost: one can only do what is humanly possible, and if you cannot save both, odds are heavily in favor of saving the mother.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #238 on: February 16, 2008, 04:53:07 AM »

The baby should not be allowed to die on his/her own because that would be negligence/child abuse/murder. 

Depends on how far gestation has progressed, if it's only a matter of weeks no amount of medical attention will do any good with current technology (perhaps in the future, not today).

Quote
The ideal system would be to have the unwanted child taken out of the mother's womb UNHARMED, and have the little baby live his/her life as a new citizen.  Funding for the life support system can come from people who plan to adopt.

I think that'd be a good system in principle. But I don't know if it would practically work.

It would help us a great deal if you had that DISCLAIMER in all your posts.

angel

Oh, I figure people are smart enough to figure this out on their own...it should be pretty obvious. Wink

Quote
BTW, how's your front yard?

Grin

Nice and clean...the coroner came by this afternoon. Grin
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #239 on: February 16, 2008, 04:54:16 AM »

Does it matter?

My son suffers a fatal kidney disease that has robbed him of his hearing.  I still would have had him if I'd known.

Considering that you can do genetic screening as part of an in vitro fertilization process, I'd say yes, it does matter.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #240 on: February 16, 2008, 05:01:19 AM »

I'm quite sure that over 2% of abused children, wives and husbands (yes, they exist: mandatory reporting has revealed not a small group at all) might be justified in killing the abuser.  Do we legalize familiar murder?

Ummm, we do have laws on the books that specifically allow for the killing of one who threatens your life or property. These cases of 'murder' are perfectly legal.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #241 on: February 16, 2008, 09:18:02 AM »

Ummm, we do have laws on the books that specifically allow for the killing of one who threatens your life or property. These cases of 'murder' are perfectly legal.

Property: no.

Life: it's an affirmative defense, in other words a pleading that can raise reasonable doubt on the predicate of a crime.  Manslaughter is still a crime, not a right, nor legal.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #242 on: February 16, 2008, 09:42:38 AM »

Interesting discussion...

I am curious... dear women, would you, really, have a child if you knew for sure, very early in your pregnancy, that this child would have an incurable disease?

Logged

Love never fails.
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #243 on: February 16, 2008, 09:48:26 AM »

A good thing to remember.  All this arguing is just a fun game to GIC.  Don't let yourself get too worked up.

I even notice he changed his nickname to "The Howard Stern of ....".  If you remember he sees this forum as his stage he's much easier to put up with!  Wink


Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #244 on: February 16, 2008, 09:52:54 AM »

Don't know about her, but I can tell you about my wife.  We have 5 kids.  The last four she refused the test for birth defects, etc.  The first she had it done without really thinking about why it was being done. She'd have the baby if it was going to be born deaf, dumb and blind with a cleft lip.  To her it's a child, and before she quit working to stay at home with our kids she took care of children that would have been called "incurable" and worthy of an abortion by many people.

Interesting discussion...

I am curious... dear women, would you, really, have a child if you knew for sure, very early in your pregnancy, that this child would have an incurable disease?


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #245 on: February 16, 2008, 09:55:42 AM »

Considering that you can do genetic screening as part of an in vitro fertilization process, I'd say yes, it does matter.

In vitro is your first problem....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #246 on: February 16, 2008, 10:05:38 AM »

Interesting discussion...

I am curious... dear women, would you, really, have a child if you knew for sure, very early in your pregnancy, that this child would have an incurable disease?

Abortion would be out of the question for me, George. But not everyone is bound by my beliefs, so I wouldn't judge anyone who made a choice different to mine.
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #247 on: February 16, 2008, 10:54:46 AM »

Abortion would be out of the question for me, George. But not everyone is bound by my beliefs, so I wouldn't judge anyone who made a choice different to mine.

If you saw a mother beating her baby in a store, would you intervene somehow, or you would pass by so as "not to judge".  I say this sure of the fact you would probably do something.  You wouldn't let your moral value to "not judge" allow you to stand back and watch a child be beaten.  Yet, if months earlier it was in its mother's womb do you mean from your above statement that you would defend the mother's right to have the child's limbs torn apart under the mantle of "do not judge".  If this is the kind of logic you are alluding to its hard for me to understand.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 11:29:46 AM by livefreeordie » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,381



« Reply #248 on: February 16, 2008, 11:39:44 AM »

If you saw a mother beating her baby in a store, would you intervene somehow, or you would pass by so as "not to judge".  I say this sure of the fact you would probably do something.  You wouldn't let your moral value to "not judge" allow you to stand back and watch a child be beaten.  Yet, if months earlier it was in its mother's womb do you mean from your above statement that you would defend the mother's right to have the child's limbs torn apart under the mantle of "do not judge".  If this is the kind of logic you are alluding to its hard for me to understand.

You can't fence in someone from themselves. If someone is about to jump off a bridge and you intervene and stop them. What makes you think you can stop them tomorrow or the next day after that? You are looking for nothing more than control. This is what the modern day Protestant wants.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #249 on: February 16, 2008, 11:51:26 AM »

If you saw a mother beating her baby in a store, would you intervene somehow, or you would pass by so as "not to judge".  I say this sure of the fact you would probably do something.  You wouldn't let your moral value to "not judge" allow you to stand back and watch a child be beaten.  Yet, if months earlier it was in its mother's womb do you mean from your above statement that you would defend the mother's right to have the child's limbs torn apart under the mantle of "do not judge".  If this is the kind of logic you are alluding to its hard for me to understand.

livefreeordie,

Your choice of nick is hard for me to understand, because I get the very strong feeling that (probably for the best of intentions) you feel the need to be in control. However, I don't even try to be. 
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #250 on: February 16, 2008, 12:13:35 PM »

Interesting discussion...

I am curious... dear women, would you, really, have a child if you knew for sure, very early in your pregnancy, that this child would have an incurable disease?



Every time a woman gets pregnant she is taking this chance, even with all the testing in the world. I have seven children, and I had 4 of them outside of the standard OB's office where they test for everything under the son-and then try to terrify you to death.  I have a child with an incurable genetic deletion on one of her x chromosomes. It's entirely random, one in every 15-20,000 live female births (in the US) Who are we to decide whose life has value and whose doesn't? My daughter who can't speak touches grown men who break down and weep, or begin to sing to her. She can touch people in ways the rest of us cannot. She has a purpose here, despite Rett.

As far as a woman chosing her life over her child's, when it comes to a tubal that life is not currently able to be placed in the womb where it should have gone anyway. We don't have the tech for it, yet. Letting the mother die for a child that is not viable is not a valid choice. However most mothers truly faced with a situation of one or the other would choose their child's life over their own, it's what mothers do.
Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #251 on: February 16, 2008, 12:27:50 PM »

Now that is funny!  I ask a question about the logic of defending someone's right to have an abortion, and you question whether I'm some kind of control freak.  My wife is more pro-life than I am.  Does that make her a control freak?

The key word in LIVE FREE OR DIE, is LIVE.  We live in a world where most people TALK about hypotheticals but live live's they don't truly like and don't truly give them meaning.  Why, they are slaves to their passions, slaves to debt, slaves to themselves.

I believe actions and HOW we live speak much louder than words. 


livefreeordie,

Your choice of nick is hard for me to understand, because I get the very strong feeling that (probably for the best of intentions) you feel the need to be in control. However, I don't even try to be. 
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 12:42:45 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #252 on: February 16, 2008, 02:12:08 PM »

Property: no.

Depends on the Jurisdiction, many jurisdictions allow for the use of deadly force against someone breaking into your home or place of business, whether they're armed or not, your life may be in no danger but your property is. In the State of Texas, the use of deadly force is specifically authorized to prevent 'theft in the nighttime' and the use of deadly force to recover stolen property is authorized. I remember a case a few years ago when a man looked out the window in texas to observe a repo man taking his truck, he took out his rifle and shot and killed the repo man as he was driving off with his vehicle, he recovered, because of the laws of the state no charges were filed against him, and he paid it off using donations from sympathetic supporters. Many jusrisdictions have removed these rights we have traditionally enjoyed, but not all jurisdictions.

Quote
Life: it's an affirmative defense, in other words a pleading that can raise reasonable doubt on the predicate of a crime.  Manslaughter is still a crime, not a right, nor legal.

Killing in defence of life or property is a specific right, a natural right, outlined in the laws of several jurisdictions. Generally these cases never go to trial, if it does, this right can be invoked to argue that the law against murder is inapplicable just as the first amendment can be invoked if one is unjustly persecuted for use of their freedom of speech.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #253 on: February 16, 2008, 02:19:46 PM »

In vitro is your first problem....

For some people it's the only option, for others it's by far the most prudent...welcome to the real world. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #254 on: February 16, 2008, 02:35:22 PM »

For some people it's the only option, for others it's by far the most prudent...welcome to the real world. Roll Eyes

By pure coincidence here in Illinois we have a guy named Peterson, like the one in California.  And like him, his one has a wife that is missing.

A lot of men don't want to throught the trouble of a divorce court, where you're fair game, losing your children, home, income,....whether you are innocent or guilty.

So it seems some have happened on the Peterson Plan for marriage dissolution.  Not that they invented it, but just a handy example of it.

For some people it's the only option, for others it's by far the most prudent....welcome to the real world. Roll Eyes

And I thought you said there were too many people around already, Greeki?  Btw, would you have the same "real world" attitude if the Muslims adapted it as a means of outnumbering the non-Muslims?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #255 on: February 16, 2008, 02:42:42 PM »

Now that is funny!  I ask a question about the logic of defending someone's right to have an abortion, and you question whether I'm some kind of control freak.  My wife is more pro-life than I am.  Does that make her a control freak?

The key word in LIVE FREE OR DIE, is LIVE.  We live in a world where most people TALK about hypotheticals but live live's they don't truly like and don't truly give them meaning.  Why, they are slaves to their passions, slaves to debt, slaves to themselves.

I believe actions and HOW we live speak much louder than words.

Considering that 'Live Free or Die' (and related sayings such as 'Freedom or Death', 'Ελευθερία ή θάνατος', 'Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la Mort!', etc.) have traditionally been used as the battle cry that would sacrifice everything else of value from their property and honour to their lives to the lives of their families, friends, and countrymen for the singular cause of liberty, considering that this has been the battle cry of noble people who have fought hopeless battles, facing near certain death, against superior forces, forsaking all else for freedom and self-determination, your use of this old and noble phrase seems quite ironic. It's ironic because you do not seem to espouse the ideals of those who had it on their lips as they marched forth to kill and to die.

In fact I would even say that your use of the term, while advocating the precepts of tyranny, is offensive to their most noble and exalted memory. It is, in essence, because I hold to these ideals of liberty that I take the position I do on this matter, to me the question of whether or not a fetus is alive or human is moot, what is important is that we here have a viable choice between life and liberty, so I have no doubt that the latter must be chosen; since laws against abortion are clearly not needed for the direct maintaining of the integrity of our social contract, he protection of human life is a secondary consideration.

And, traditionally speaking, 'live' is not the key word in the phrase 'live free or die', 'free' is the key word...the point is that life without freedom is utterly devoid of all value. To quote General Stark, who is credited with coining the phrase, in his entirety, 'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #256 on: February 16, 2008, 02:43:53 PM »

Depends on the Jurisdiction, many jurisdictions allow for the use of deadly force against someone breaking into your home or place of business, whether they're armed or not, your life may be in no danger but your property is. In the State of Texas, the use of deadly force is specifically authorized to prevent 'theft in the nighttime' and the use of deadly force to recover stolen property is authorized. I remember a case a few years ago when a man looked out the window in texas to observe a repo man taking his truck, he took out his rifle and shot and killed the repo man as he was driving off with his vehicle, he recovered, because of the laws of the state no charges were filed against him, and he paid it off using donations from sympathetic supporters. Many jusrisdictions have removed these rights we have traditionally enjoyed, but not all jurisdictions.

Killing in defence of life or property is a specific right, a natural right, outlined in the laws of several jurisdictions. Generally these cases never go to trial, if it does, this right can be invoked to argue that the law against murder is inapplicable just as the first amendment can be invoked if one is unjustly persecuted for use of their freedom of speech.

I don't have the fortune of living in Texas, but the misfortune of being in Illiniois, a state getting bluer in more ways than one.  And in Chicago on top of that.

I do recall a common law prohibition on, say, booby traps, to protect property: had its roots in lords having their hunting grounds so protected, the enclosure movement etc.  I do believe that the self defense common law right comes from a different source.  It's not worth my time to research it at this time, which for me is getting shorter.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #257 on: February 16, 2008, 02:45:35 PM »

By pure coincidence here in Illinois we have a guy named Peterson, like the one in California.  And like him, his one has a wife that is missing.

A lot of men don't want to throught the trouble of a divorce court, where you're fair game, losing your children, home, income,....whether you are innocent or guilty.

So it seems some have happened on the Peterson Plan for marriage dissolution.  Not that they invented it, but just a handy example of it.

Relevance?

Quote
And I thought you said there were too many people around already, Greeki?  Btw, would you have the same "real world" attitude if the Muslims adapted it as a means of outnumbering the non-Muslims?

I'm not opposed to people having children, but I do believe we should limit family sizes to one or two children, I see no reason to deny this to people. People who make use of in vitro fertilization are usually more reasonable in this regard anyway. Not many people use in vitro fertilization to have ten children.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #258 on: February 16, 2008, 02:50:22 PM »

I want to clarify something. I have know a number of women that had to end the life of a child from a tubal pregnancy. EVEN SINGLE WOMAN I have ever met does it. It is so excrutiatingly painful that you COULD NOT continue the pregnancy until you die. Most tubal pregnancies are caught AS THE WOMAN IS DYING. Rarely, is a tubal pregnancy caught before it gets to the dangerous point because most women don't have ultrasounds before 12 weeks at the earliest due to the cost and insurance policys. If you undergo fertility treatments, or you are really rich, or like me you have had untold number of miscarriages, or you have had previous tubal pregnancies or other medical issues, you will have early ultrasounds to determine viability. But that is ONLY to check for heartbeat and to make sure the pregnancy isn't in your tube.

So no, most women put into the situation of a known tubal pregnancy would not continue it to their own peril.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 02:51:51 PM by Quinault » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #259 on: February 16, 2008, 02:54:41 PM »

Considering that 'Live Free or Die' (and related sayings such as 'Freedom or Death', 'Ελευθερία ή θάνατος', 'Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la Mort!', etc.) have traditionally been used as the battle cry that would sacrifice everything else of value from their property and honour to their lives to the lives of their families, friends, and countrymen for the singular cause of liberty, considering that this has been the battle cry of noble people who have fought hopeless battles, facing near certain death, against superior forces, forsaking all else for freedom and self-determination, your use of this old and noble phrase seems quite ironic. It's ironic because you do not seem to espouse the ideals of those who had it on their lips as they marched forth to kill and to die.

In fact I would even say that your use of the term, while advocating the precepts of tyranny, is offensive to their most noble and exalted memory. It is, in essence, because I hold to these ideals of liberty that I take the position I do on this matter, to me the question of whether or not a fetus is alive or human is moot, what is important is that we here have a viable choice between life and liberty, so I have no doubt that the latter must be chosen; since laws against abortion are clearly not needed for the direct maintaining of the integrity of our social contract, he protection of human life is a secondary consideration.

And, traditionally speaking, 'live' is not the key word in the phrase 'live free or die', 'free' is the key word...the point is that life without freedom is utterly devoid of all value. To quote General Stark, who is credited with coining the phrase, in his entirety, 'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'

Get a grip Greeki.

Their noble and exalted memory also includes the States' rights argument for negro slavery and the Reign of Terror.

I would go on about abortion does tear the fabric of the social contract, but I perhaps might first admit I don't buy the social contract **** in the first place (no one asked me to sign).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Quinault
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,518


What about frogs? I like frogs!


« Reply #260 on: February 16, 2008, 02:56:08 PM »

I haven't undergone the genetic testing since my eldest was born. But I did give my son the Vitamin K injection since hemophilia runs in the family. I don't think that you have to use the results to terminate the pregnancy either though. A young couple in our church found out that they were carrying a daughter with moderate downs syndrome and heart and lung  issues. They knew ahead of time so that there was a full NICU staff onboard when she gave birth in order to save their daughters life right after her birth. And the pregnancy was monitored so that they could keep her baby in as long as possible.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #261 on: February 16, 2008, 03:00:21 PM »

Relevance?

That your philosophy of bending morality to "the real world" must be applied to other situations other than your pet issues.  Yes, I'm a fan of Kant on that.

Quote
I'm not opposed to people having children, but I do believe we should limit family sizes to one or two children, I see no reason to deny this to people. People who make use of in vitro fertilization are usually more reasonable in this regard anyway. Not many people use in vitro fertilization to have ten children.

The problems of in vitro are just multiplying, such as what to do with the surplus of fetuses.  I'm personally fond of the idea of childless couples, and then nuns being the recipients.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #262 on: February 16, 2008, 03:05:30 PM »

I haven't undergone the genetic testing since my eldest was born. But I did give my son the Vitamin K injection since hemophilia runs in the family. I don't think that you have to use the results to terminate the pregnancy either though. A young couple in our church found out that they were carrying a daughter with moderate downs syndrome and heart and lung  issues. They knew ahead of time so that there was a full NICU staff onboard when she gave birth in order to save their daughters life right after her birth. And the pregnancy was monitored so that they could keep her baby in as long as possible.

Yes, I would support testing for the simple reason of being prepared.  In my case, the fact that my son wasn't diagnosed until far later was better, because he had already proved himself in mainstream schooling.  In fact, it wasn't until some three years later that he ever thought of himself as disabled (a well intentioned assembly at school had someone who was a parapalygic, I believe, and when he mentioned deafness as a handicap, my son first realized that described him.  I cried).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #263 on: February 16, 2008, 03:42:00 PM »

That your philosophy of bending morality to "the real world" must be applied to other situations other than your pet issues.  Yes, I'm a fan of Kant on that.

That's where social contract theory comes in.

Quote
The problems of in vitro are just multiplying, such as what to do with the surplus of fetuses.  I'm personally fond of the idea of childless couples, and then nuns being the recipients.

I'm personally fond of using them for scientific research.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #264 on: February 16, 2008, 03:44:52 PM »

That's where social contract theory comes in.

I'm personally fond of using them for scientific research.

How unlike you. Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #265 on: February 16, 2008, 03:50:11 PM »

Get a grip Greeki.

Their noble and exalted memory also includes the States' rights argument for negro slavery and the Reign of Terror.

The 'reign of terror' was a necessary evil and a far better thing than the continuation of the French monarchy. And, of course, I fully support the rights of the state over the rights of the federal government, where I would have disagreed with the apologists on both sides of the conflict is that I also support the rights of the individual over the rights of both the state and federal government.

Quote
I would go on about abortion does tear the fabric of the social contract, but I perhaps might first admit I don't buy the social contract **** in the first place (no one asked me to sign).

As it does not directly and immediately undermine the social contract (like allowing wanton adult homicide would quickly throw us into a state of complete anarchy), liberty should always be given precedence. Our laws are a balance between maintaining our social contract and maintaining our liberty, but if there is ever a question as to which one is more important in a given situation, preference should be given to liberty as it is what gives our social contract a value absent in other societies, it's what makes it worth maintaining.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #266 on: February 16, 2008, 03:53:18 PM »

How unlike you. Roll Eyes

Yes I know, I'm one of those evil secularists who want to advance the boundaries of modern science. I'm sure the diabolical implications of our actions, like a cure for AIDS (clearly a disease given by God to evil people as punishment of their sins), will manifest themselves in the next few decades. Roll Eyes
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #267 on: February 16, 2008, 04:10:29 PM »

Yes I know, I'm one of those evil secularists who want to advance the boundaries of modern science. I'm sure the diabolical implications of our actions, like a cure for AIDS (clearly a disease given by God to evil people as punishment of their sins), will manifest themselves in the next few decades. Roll Eyes

That is what frustrates me the most with the self righteous religious zealots on this forum and in general: if you don't agree with their narrow political views to the letter you are scum of the earth evil.  How many times how ialmisry said on the politics forum that you and I are no different than Stalin or Hilter because we *gasp* believe in separation of church and state?  Or my favorite was that working for a non-religious NGO that feeds children is evil since it is obviously part of a utopian scheme. 

What in religion causes people to get like that? 
Logged
livefreeordie
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #268 on: February 16, 2008, 04:33:14 PM »

Nice words.

I was a Marine for 5 and half years to protect our liberties.  I'm not sure any of our founding fathers would have said Liberty is a license to do what you want.  None that I know of advocated for no laws.  But it does mean a lot of different things to different people.  To me it meant a responsibility to protect human freedom and dignity.  I fought for them.

How quickly you stereotype people with little to no knowledge of them.  So you know that I'm against abortion.  Not for religious reasons, not for political reasons.  I just happen to think it's a heinous, selfish act.  Just as heinous and selfish as child abuse or murder.  And just as worthy of having restrictions on it.  I would allow it in the case of the health of the mother allowing her to make that moral choice.

Then because of that one position, I'm all of sudden a religious zealot and anti-freedom?  I can't imagine someone being more judgemental, more narrow-minded, more of a zealot than judging a person based on one position they take.  It makes me wonder what you know about freedom.  Oh, and I forgot, from other threads.  The fact I don't think people should be allowed to steal music, software, games, etc. and I think hard drugs like heroin and cocaine should be illegal must make me anti-freedom in your mind also.

My use of the words, Live Free or Die?  Offensive?  I'm self employed.  We home school our kids.  I served our country and I suffered a broken back defending it.  I spend every week in prisons and with poor people. Every day I get up and do what I want and what I love. By your definition, my actions, my life, is as free as anyone you probably know. General Stark wouldn't find me offensive.  I would fit right in. We'd be on his farm after the war telling war stories. The person he would find offensive is the one who uses his words to justify vice as opposed to true human liberty, along with anyone who is more into talking than action.  Yes, I'm sure the general and I would find much agreement in the words, "talk is cheap."

Considering that 'Live Free or Die' (and related sayings such as 'Freedom or Death', 'Ελευθερία ή θάνατος', 'Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, ou la Mort!', etc.) have traditionally been used as the battle cry that would sacrifice everything else of value from their property and honour to their lives to the lives of their families, friends, and countrymen for the singular cause of liberty, considering that this has been the battle cry of noble people who have fought hopeless battles, facing near certain death, against superior forces, forsaking all else for freedom and self-determination, your use of this old and noble phrase seems quite ironic. It's ironic because you do not seem to espouse the ideals of those who had it on their lips as they marched forth to kill and to die.

In fact I would even say that your use of the term, while advocating the precepts of tyranny, is offensive to their most noble and exalted memory. It is, in essence, because I hold to these ideals of liberty that I take the position I do on this matter, to me the question of whether or not a fetus is alive or human is moot, what is important is that we here have a viable choice between life and liberty, so I have no doubt that the latter must be chosen; since laws against abortion are clearly not needed for the direct maintaining of the integrity of our social contract, he protection of human life is a secondary consideration.

And, traditionally speaking, 'live' is not the key word in the phrase 'live free or die', 'free' is the key word...the point is that life without freedom is utterly devoid of all value. To quote General Stark, who is credited with coining the phrase, in his entirety, 'Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils.'
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 05:25:26 PM by livefreeordie » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #269 on: February 16, 2008, 05:16:59 PM »

The 'reign of terror' was a necessary evil


yes, outrages of evil are always done in the name of the higher good.

Quote
and a far better thing than the continuation of the French monarchy.

I don't even have to address the merits of your contention, as the monarchy had been abolished, and the king executed, by the time the Terror began on September 5, 1793.

Btw 70% of its victims were the working, poor class.

Quote
And, of course, I fully support the rights of the state over the rights of the federal government, where I would have disagreed with the apologists on both sides of the conflict is that I also support the rights of the individual over the rights of both the state and federal government.

What individuals?  Chief Justice Taney had ruled that those of African ancestry could NOT be individual citizens under the US Constitution.

He also stated that although personally opposed to slavery (he freed those he inherited, and gave the old ones pensions), he could not force his moral beliefs on everyone.  That wasn't in the social contract he was sworn to uphold.

Quote
As it does not directly and immediately undermine the social contract (like allowing wanton adult homicide would quickly throw us into a state of complete anarchy), liberty should always be given precedence. Our laws are a balance between maintaining our social contract and maintaining our liberty, but if there is ever a question as to which one is more important in a given situation, preference should be given to liberty as it is what gives our social contract a value absent in other societies, it's what makes it worth maintaining.
Al-Qa'ida is depending on that.

Yes I know, I'm one of those evil secularists who want to advance the boundaries of modern science.

You mean push them.

Quote
I'm sure the diabolical implications of our actions, like a cure for AIDS (clearly a disease given by God to evil people as punishment of their sins), will manifest themselves in the next few decades. Roll Eyes

Yes, more people. But then, I'm not the one who has a problem with that, now am I?

That is what frustrates me the most with the self righteous religious zealots on this forum and in general: if you don't agree with their narrow political views to the letter you are scum of the earth evil.  How many times how ialmisry said on the politics forum that you and I are no different than Stalin or Hilter because we *gasp* believe in separation of church and state?

Uh, never.

Quote
Or my favorite was that working for a non-religious NGO that feeds children is evil since it is obviously part of a utopian scheme.

Didn't say that either. 

Quote
What in religion causes people to get like that? 

What in secularism causes such a martyr complex?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 05:34:11 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: abortion 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.159 seconds with 72 queries.