Religion as Salad Bar (Part 2)

During the Obama campaign, I wrote about my theory of religion as a salad bar and I suppose that article could be considered Part 1. In that article I proposed that what kept Obama in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years was the typical salad bar approach  that many have to religion. I listen to what pleases me and I discard the rest.  Obama claims he never heard Wright say anything inflammatory. That just doesn’t pass the sniff test. I contend, Barack didn’t hear what he didn’t want to hear.

Now we move onto Part 2. For what must be purely political reasons, Patrick Kennedy, Democratic Representative from Rhode Island and son of the late great Senator Ted Kennedy, has decided to air his religious dirty laundry in public. Apparently back in 2007, Bishop Thomas Tobin told Kennedy essentially that he was not a good Catholic and therefore could not receive communion. The crux of the rift between Kennedy and his church was his pro-choice stance on abortion. According to Politico, Kennedy was not the only politician held in disdain by Tobin for a pro-choice preference.

On MSNBC’s “Hardball”, Chris Matthews pulled no punches in his interview with Tobin. If you can get past Matthews’ relentless and often irritating interview style, you get some interesting questions regarding separation of church and state.

When the church holds politicians personally accountable for the legislation they support is that a (not so) subtle way of influencing debate? Is Tobin right that it is the job of the church to provide moral guidance to government even if the church does not actually write the laws? I found Tobin’s argument compelling even if he could not handle the ultimate job of deciding what the punishment should be for illegal abortions.

But I digress. What I really want is to shine a light on the typical “religious so long as it suits me” attitude of Patrick Kennedy who wants to have his wafer and eat it too. I’m sorry dude but you signed up to be a Catholic. No one put a gun to your head to force you into it. Your church says abortion is wrong and if you support views contrary to that, then you’re not towing the line of your church. So it’s very simple, you don’t get communion. To me it’s a lot like the gay couples who want to yell and scream about not getting church weddings. Folks, at least if you’re a Christian, your religion considers your lifestyle an abomination. You’re not gonna change that. So get out of the church or find one that thinks differently. Same goes for Representative Kennedy. Catholicism is no salad bar, despite what you may see many of your hypocritical fellow Catholics do. Either you abide by the teachings of the church or you suffer whatever consequences the church has for you. It’s really that simple.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

 

About these ads

81 thoughts on “Religion as Salad Bar (Part 2)

  1. Oh, man! You’re right, really. But the church is a living creature as much as gov’t , and as such can be influenced by its constituents. So it could be argued that staying in the church, but dissenting, is a path toward change.

    As for Kennedy keeping this to himself since 2007 until now, I’m okay with that. Previously, it was a private issue between him and his church. Recently, however, the Catholic Bishops have begun flexing their muscle to influence public policy on a large scale. I think it is appropriate that Kennedy his story at this time. After all, could be interpreted that the church was attempting to influence his vote. But he does have to represent ALL of his constituents, not just anti-choice Catholics.

    It also must be pointed out that the Bishops are playing a bit of “salad bar” themselves. No other facet of Catholic Church teaching seems to warrant the effort of the Bishops like abortion. (For instance, the death penalty.)

    Thanks for the thought exercise!

  2. Cassandra, as a religious skeptic I find it hard to believe much change is possible from parishioner influence but what you say is certainly true at face value.

    As for the church trying to influence his vote, ABSOLUTELY! That is the thorny issue at play here. As we remember, W was heavily influenced (or so he said) by the Lord. Both Palin and Bachmann seem to think they are doing the Lord’s work. So it is natural for the church to try to capitalize on this. And then there is the question of where does a politician’s civic duty leave off and his personal beliefs begin and how do those beliefs reflect his religious attitudes?

    So, we actually have a two part quagmire, both parts of which you touched on in your comment. Does a Representative vote his own conscience or the views of his constituents? Then, if he votes his own conscience, and that conscience is influenced by religious beliefs, then hasn’t the church found its back door into government?

  3. *rubs eyes*

    R? Izzat you?

    But the church is a living creature as much as gov’t , and as such can be influenced by its constituents.

    Sorry, but no. If it is Chrisitianity, then it accepts that certain things are truths, and that those truths do not change. Such a view is necessary, because if the whims of man could change the nature of truth, then there is no such thing as an eternal truth, such as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, and without such concepts, society as we have come to know it cannot exist.

    It also must be pointed out that the Bishops are playing a bit of “salad bar” themselves. No other facet of Catholic Church teaching seems to warrant the effort of the Bishops like abortion. (For instance, the death penalty.)

    [As a protest-ant raised in a community of Catholics]
    Of course, it could be that there really isn’t any inconsistancy here at all. Abortion is a process whereby a mother alone can make the arbitrary decision to end the life of her unborn child, for no other crime than being conceived, a process which that victim had no choice or say in.

    In contrast, a person convicted and sentanced to death made a decision that subjected them to the moral authority and judgement of society as manifested by our laws. They also had something not granted to the dead baby: due process.

    So if it appears to you that their focus is uneven, you might for a minute consider that it has something to do with a calling to speak in favor of the innocent and most vunerable first.

  4. R? Izzat you?

    BiW while I am a religious skeptic to the core, I firmly believe if you’re gonna play the game, you gotta play by the rules.

    Now I can already feel the ghost of Elric kicking me in the ass since I have long held that peaceful Muslims can take the good out of their Koran and leave the bad. Maybe in writing this article I am beginning to see the error of my ways. Can you be a “true Muslim” and not believe in Jihad, just as can you be a true Catholic and still believe in abortion?

    Damn … I hate it when my own mental exercises box me in. :-)

  5. As for the church trying to influence his vote, ABSOLUTELY!

    You’re right! Why leave it to amatuers who are looking beyond the blood money of the procedure or the immediate effect on the lives of the Mother and child? Much better to leave that decison to unbiased and objetive lobbyists and special interests like NARAL and Planned Parenthood. After all, why not accept the moral judgments of those who are helping to destroy a society rather than build one, and make no mistake, law is a reflection of moral judgement.

    That is the thorny issue at play here. As we remember, W was heavily influenced (or so he said) by the Lord.

    OK, I’ll bite. Tell me, Pastor R, just what makes you believe that he wasn’t? I’m always interested in the analysis of those who subscripoe to religious beliefs made by those who openly profess to have none.

    Both Palin and Bachmann seem to think they are doing the Lord’s work.

    I don’t remember reading such remarks by either, but it is a busy world these days, what with a 24/7 news cycle and all. I don’t suppose you could steer me to the interviews where they have made these pronouncements?

    So it is natural for the church to try to capitalize on this.

    Sauce for the goose. I’m thinking that 50 years ago, you would have been voicing serious concerns over the papal influence in the Oval Office with that noted Catholic Theocrat, JFK.

    And then there is the question of where does a politician’s civic duty leave off and his personal beliefs begin and how do those beliefs reflect his religious attitudes?

    Why would such beliefs and attitudes be any less legitimate for a politican than how their career and other life experiences might have shaped them? The real question that you should be asking yourself is do you want a politician who believes in accountablity to a higher authority, and is thus also accountable to their constituency, or do you want someone who believes that man himself is the beginning and end of all authority, and therefore beleves that their opinions are the starting and end points for all analysis and action.

    So, we actually have a two part quagmire, both parts of which you touched on in your comment. Does a Representative vote his own conscience or the views of his constituents?

    Now you’re starting to scratch the surface of some of the deeper issues of governing a succesful society. All politics, at its core is about leadership. Leadership entails setting a standard, and having the courage to do what is right when doing so may not be in accord with your constituents. Unfortunately, we have come to a place where, for better or worse, many constituencies and their representatives no longer have a common frame of reference as to what ‘right’ is, and we need look no farther than Congress’s recent activities to see that “right’ is too often confused with what is expedient, or what people want based solely on their feelings, the law be damned.

    Then, if he votes his own conscience, and that conscience is influenced by religious beliefs, then hasn’t the church found its back door into government?

  6. 30 minutes watching a baby squirm as the cold steel of death dices the poor thing to pieces and I bet Rutherford would be at Connecticut’s next pro-life rally.

    The shit is so wrong, I never even needed God’s help to see it for what it is. The key is you have to see it.

  7. Then, if he votes his own conscience, and that conscience is influenced by religious beliefs, then hasn’t the church found its back door into government?

    Religious beliefs and “the church” are not always the same thing, R. However, many of our founders’ consciences were “influenced by religious beliefs”, and still I don’t recall ‘a church’ pulling the strings of government, and yet as the more I study history, the society that they governed exhibits more hallmarks of freedom and liberty than the one we live in today. And before you start in with a specious claim of “hyperbole”, think of how many things a person needs to have the government’s permission (or blessing, if you will) to do in this day and age. There is very little in your daily life that is not somehow subject to examination, reivew, scrutiny, licensing, inspection, or some other form of government oversight, permit, fee, fine or tax.

  8. BiW, more or less in the order of your points:

    1. Who said the church was the only outside force trying to influence legislation? You’re making a point I never refuted.

    2. LOL … ok that was a cheap shot I just couldn’t resist. Immature on my part. I really don’t doubt Bush’s Christianity. (On the contrary, I always felt it had too much influence on him. Incidentally I’m not tickled with all of Obama’s appeals to God either.)

    3. Please don’t make me hunt for links but Palin has gone on record saying that she does what God has planned for her. It’s one of her ways of evading the the “will you run for Pres” question by saying she has no idea what God has planned for her. Bachmann also invokes God on a frequent basis. My specific “doing God’s work” may be over generalizing but the gist of it is still there.

    4. JFK did exactly what he should have done by declaring a separation of church and state. The meta-question is whether this is truly possible for a man ruled by religious conviction. I don’t know whether or not JFK was,

    5. Quite frankly, I’m more comfortable with a politician who does not believe in a “higher authority”. I can get a pretty good idea of what his constituents are telling him to do. I haven’t the foggiest idea what God might be telling him to do.

  9. There is very little in your daily life that is not somehow subject to examination, reivew, scrutiny, licensing, inspection, or some other form of government oversight, permit, fee, fine or tax.

    I would only counter this by saying there is quite a lot our framers never envisioned. A more complex society requires greater regulation.

  10. Rabbit, I am conflicted up the ying-yang about abortion and have never said otherwise. I am not pro-abortion. In fact, I am a firm believer that medical science must always act in defense of life. But unlike you, I cannot get past the fact that a woman is intimately involved in this process and for her voice to be ignored is no solution either.

    I have a question for you and anyone else who cares to tackle it. Why do most of you agree in “no abortion except in the case of rape and incest”? Is it the baby’s fault that his father was a rapist or his grandfather/iuncle? Why is it that you’re willing to let your sexual mores trump your defense of the innocent? Now I may be throwing the wrong question at you Rabbit. Maybe you believe there is NO defense for abortion. In which case, I’d love anyone else to take a crack at it.

  11. Rutherford (& Rabbit)
    Excellent point! It’s my contention that anyone who is vehemently anti-abortion, but is willing to make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest, reveals the true source of their opposition.

    It is not about the “sanctity of life” that is so often claimed, but rather a moral conviction that “consequences” must be meted out for promiscuity. That is imposing your personal values (whether based on religion or tradition) on another. And I can’t tolerate that kind of heavy-handed control over another’s life.

    I have more respect for those that are not willing to compromise on rape/incest for the sake of staking out a more moderate position. Having said that, I vigorously disagree, and find it to be a relic of male-domination of women.

    Fundamentally, abortion rights are women’s rights. Not all women have to believe that abortion is right for them; but every women should have the right to determine the course of her own life.

  12. 1. Who said the church was the only outside force trying to influence legislation? You’re making a point I never refuted.

    True, but the whole thrust of your comment is that it is wrong for the church to try to influence his political decisions. That might be what the intent was, and it might not be. I come down on the latter, not the former, because it wasn’t the Bishop who published the letter. It was communicated privately to the Kennedy in question, and remained a private matter for 5 years until the recipient published it. I can only view that as someone making a political statement in a political climate that is currently ambivalent if not hostile to Christianity.

    Still what you implied with that statement was contrary to where you were going with the post. The Church does have every right to comment on and correct the attitudes of its members, and as a representative of one moral perspective embodied in society, its members have the same rights as any other citizen to try to influence polticians.

    Please don’t make me hunt for links but Palin has gone on record saying that she does what God has planned for her. It’s one of her ways of evading the the “will you run for Pres” question by saying she has no idea what God has planned for her.
    R, once again, you fail to see there is a distinction between the two. God had a plan for Jonah, but he only finally and reluctantly did the work that God planned for him. The same could be said of Moses, who never wanted to be the spokesman for his people. And Pharoh? God had a plan for him, too, although I don’t think his role fits the condecending definition of “God’s plan” that I think you had in mind.

    JFK did exactly what he should have done by declaring a separation of church and state. The meta-question is whether this is truly possible for a man ruled by religious conviction.

    So in R’s world, there is a copmplete and utter disconnect between loyalty to God and loyalty to man?

    Quite frankly, I’m more comfortable with a politician who does not believe in a “higher authority”. I can get a pretty good idea of what his constituents are telling him to do. I haven’t the foggiest idea what God might be telling him to do.

    For a self-proclaimed ‘religious skeptic’, I don’t think you’ve given this one a lot of thought. If you are dealing with a serious Christian, there really shouldn’t be any serious question of what their faith demands of them, just as an informed and sober perspective should also contemplate that despite what Christianity demands, there is no way for any believer to ever meet all those expectations. Christians, like others are still sinners, but honest ones still try to hold themselves accountable to standards higher than those of simply seeking what the heart alone wants. As such, you have every reason to have at least a core set of expectations. With those with no such belief, you have no real certainty in what might guide their judgement.

    Let me reframe the issue for you. Do you believe that the founders who believed in God who became President were inferior to those that did not, or were circumspect about their opinions?

  13. I would only counter this by saying there is quite a lot our framers never envisioned.

    Nonsense. As you and I have discussed before, they made allowances for addressing the uncontemplated. What is really at stake is a multi-headed hydra that has a rapacious appetite for the public fisk to continue to grow more and more heads.

    A more complex society requires greater regulation.

    Piffle. Easy justification for the usurpation of freedom by would-be tyrants.

    “A more complex society” does not dictate the necessity that I get approval of the local Homeowners Association for the color of paint I choose for my house, or they get to place a lien against it for as long as I am out of compliance. Nor does it justify the county dictating the required setbacks and types of structures to be erected on my property, which was purchased with the fruits of my labor. At one time, a case might have been made for such regulations under the rubric of “health, safety, and welfare”, but such justifications ring hollow in days when minimum distances between residential structures once established for legitimate means such as fire supression are frequently reduced in cynical regognition that cutting such distances by half would eventually result in greater tax revenues.
    “A more complex society” does not justify the takings that occur when local and federal authorities see fit to dictate to private land owners the permissable and impermissable uses of their land. Such dictation is the unlawful taking of the owner’s property rights, and yet daily, private land owners who’s properties are declared “wetlands” face such unlawful mandates.

    These are only a few examples. I can name many, many more.

  14. “Fundamentally, abortion rights are women’s rights. Not all women have to believe that abortion is right for them; but every women should have the right to determine the course of her own life.” CB

    What about the rights of the father? Last I checked, women didn’t spontaneously conceive children. Why is it that fathers never have any say or input?

    Secondly, I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that only the extremes can survive. I’m not a fan of abortion, but I recognize it as a medical procedure. Does that mean a women should be able to run to any clinic for any reason and take a life? No. I don’t understand why pro-abortion folks- and that is what you are- are averse to any semblance of reasonable and logical management of a procedure that takes a human life.

  15. I have more respect for those that are not willing to compromise on rape/incest for the sake of staking out a more moderate position. Having said that, I vigorously disagree, and find it to be a relic of male-domination of women.

    Fundamentally, abortion rights are women’s rights. Not all women have to believe that abortion is right for them; but every women should have the right to determine the course of her own life.

    Ah. Another in a long line of left wing misandrists playing the game along the lines of “we are women, hear us roar.” Then you’ll have to respect me because my belief is just that: unless the choice is between mother and child, there is no choice – there is simply infanticide which is exactly what abortion is.

    However, more to your point – who is begrudging you the determination of your own life? Too bad that your argument falls flat in that not only is the baby whom you might happen to carry not your own body, but half the time doesn’t even share your same sex.

    So feel free to choose your own path the way you see fit – as long as that path doesn’t begrudge the life and well being of another.

    And if abortion is ultimately and only the choice of women, then I will have to assume since men have no voice in the manner, neither should they have any responsibility of support?

    Carry on with the your party’s march to “we love death more than we love life.” You “progressives” do share much in common with radical Islam.

  16. Excellent point! It’s my contention that anyone who is vehemently anti-abortion, but is willing to make exceptions in the cases of rape and incest, reveals the true source of their opposition.

    And I would contend that they simply didn’t finish the thought, which seems par for the course in today’s world. It’s really very simple: When you compromise with evil, you start down the path of decline.

    It is not about the “sanctity of life” that is so often claimed, but rather a moral conviction that “consequences” must be meted out for promiscuity. That is imposing your personal values (whether based on religion or tradition) on another. And I can’t tolerate that kind of heavy-handed control over another’s life.

    Ahh yes, the old “You can’t punish me with a baby!” argument. And why not? It worked out splendidly for Captain Awesome in the campaign last year. I couldn’t help but think of his daughters as he said it, and whether they might not think that they were a “punishment” for their mother. But I digress. Let’s return to the meat of what you said. Not allowing you to have a human being murdered is an unacceptable imposition of personal values? Do you feel the same indignance at laws against someone arbitrarily murdering you? As for “heavy-handed control” based on personal values, do you also rebel at the prospect of government forcing you to buy a health insurance plan that they approve of? A plan by which a government official, or group of government official may decide what treatments you may or may not have based on what they determine is cost effective, regardless of your ability to pay? A plan by which these same government officials will also decide what practitioners, who are private individuals, may charge for their services? And if so, would you feel the same if those same officials could also determine the value of your labor?

    I have more respect for those that are not willing to compromise on rape/incest for the sake of staking out a more moderate position. Having said that, I vigorously disagree, and find it to be a relic of male-domination of women.

    While I cannot make that compromise, I am capable of understanding that some are, based solely on the fact that conception due to rape or incest is not the result of a choice by the mother. In contrast, we do live in a time when conception is eminently preventable, either through the practice of self-control by abstinence, or by the responsible use of birth control, and the recognition that that is the moment when a woman can and should have a right to choose.

    Fundamentally, abortion rights are women’s rights. Not all women have to believe that abortion is right for them; but every women should have the right to determine the course of her own life.

    Baloney. The arbitrary murder of a human being because you didn’t exercise your real right to chose and don’t wish to be inconvenienced for 9 months is evil. That decision doesn’t just impact the mother, it impacts the life not lived, and it impacts the father, who is denied a say in it, even when his participation was vital in getting to that point, and when he is legally compelled to be financially responsible for that life if Mom carries to term. Your view is selfish, illogical, and reflects one of the consistant lies of our time. And even honest liberals can and have admitted that the tortured legal reasoning that has sanctioned such barbarism does not stand up under even semi-serious scrutiny.

  17. “Why do most of you agree in “no abortion except in the case of rape and incest”?”-Rutherford

    Ahh…we have once again come full circle to the classic pro-choice red herring. What about those abortions that take place one out of every 5,000: incest and rape.

    Before I get sucked into this game, let me point out the obvious. I am not expert in morality.

    The one thing I learned in the Navy is there are times you must sacrfice a few sailors for the good of the ship.

    In the case of incest or a severely disformed baby, early abortion to me is the lesser of two unfortunates.

    Rape is a tough one. I don’t have an answer for you. You got me Rutherford. I see the error of my ways. Let’s kill the babies.

  18. Ahh…we have once again come full circle to the classic pro-choice red herring. What about those abortions that take place one out of every 5,000: incest and rape.

    Oh. I thought the classic red herring was that the proponents of infanticide want it to be “Safe, rare, and legal.” I never have gotten a straight answer to why they should want it to be “rare” if there wasn’t anything objectionable or wrong about the practice. I mean, if it should be a “right” and there is no justifiable basis for prohibiting it, then wanting it to be rare makes no sense.

  19. Anybody remember some months back Rutherford’s “concern” about a fired up, wing-nut based hysteria leading to the killing of a census worker? Racist, sexist, militia, Christian revolutionaries running berserk through the countryside, probably in Klan hoods? Kill all the Obamites!!! Kill all the Feds!!! I thought Rutherford was going to cry…

    Well, another lib bites the dust and it ain’t from the right wing paranoia that Rutherford was led to believe…

    http://www.kentucky.com/latest_news/story/1032979.html

  20. Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere, that is a great point. I never thought of that one.

    Tex, I read that today. Wouldn’t you just know there wasn’t a follow up blog on that one? LOL.

    To change the subject again, can we all agree that Obama’s habit of prancing around like a pussy during his overseas bow tour is not working? I don’t give a damn if your from the left or right, Obama comes home empty handed and panned every time.

  21. Typo prevented this from initially going through…

    “Fundamentally, abortion rights are women’s rights. Not all women have to believe that abortion is right for them; but every women should have the right to determine the course of her own life.” CB

    What about the rights of the father? Last I checked, women didn’t spontaneously conceive children. Why is it that fathers never have any say or input?

    Secondly, I find it absolutely ludicrous to believe that only the extremes can survive. I’m not a fan of abortion, but I recognize it as a medical procedure. Does that mean a women should be able to run to any clinic for any reason and take a life? No. I don’t understand why pro-abortion folks- and that is what you are- are averse to any semblance of reasonable and logical management of a procedure that takes a human life.

  22. To change the subject again, can we all agree that Obama’s habit of prancing around like a pussy during his overseas bow tour is not working?

    I agree but I think the strike out is more descriptive. Obama is a disaster of epic proportions – even Wally Curator knows it but would never admit it.

    Curator has got some hard on for Christianity that overrides the circuitry of rational thinking. Rutherford the Rube is however, a die hard believer in anything Bomba. He’ll go down holding the hand wheel of the Barack Titanic

  23. (Possibly this has already been said … I haven’t read all of the comments. Sorry if that’s the case.)

    “When the church holds politicians personally accountable for the legislation they support is that a (not so) subtle way of influencing debate?”

    Yes. Nothing subtle about it at all. The church has positions, and it expects its members to advance them. In very much the same way that any other group with positions would hold its members accountable if they advance the contrary position.

    If I, for example, started a book-burning club, I’d expect that the Friends of the Library would invite me to leave.

    Matthews, of course, is fundamentally flawed in his reasoning. The idea that the separation of church and state means that the Church is obligated to ignore a person’s actions because they were performed as a part of the state is just … well, … stupid.

  24. The Rabbit’s quagmire:

    1. Keep on paying for a house I bought for 225,000 dollars that is now worth 130,000, despite my wife making half the income she used to. The kicker? Her job is now not allowing her to go to afternoons, which means another 900 a month for day care. The upshot is tearing a baby from it’s mother in order to pay a bank I bailed out as I struggle for 25 more years throwing most of my income at nothing. I get to stay in my desperate housewives sub.

    2. Screw my neighbors, my community and my country, stop paying the mortgage. Baby is with Mom as we live for free until they kick us out. A pocket full of cash, I enter the market, severely down size and live free (absent my guilt). I buy a house with cash. Yes it is possible. I will have the mark of Cain for 7 years, but who cares?

    Either way, option 1 or 2, I’m riddled with guilt.

    The wild card? My job next year. I have literally pulled of a miracle at work. Behind the scenes with a little bullying, a little flattery and little back stabbing have successfully got the contract changed on tie breakers for seniority. I have greatly improved my odds of not being laid off. God help me if it ever comes out I was the secret engineer. God help me if I get laid off.

    What is the right thing to do?

  25. While I cannot make that compromise, I am capable of understanding that some are, based solely on the fact that conception due to rape or incest is not the result of a choice by the mother.

    With that statement, you have just confirmed CB’s premise. You are “capable of understanding” because it’s not definitively about the life of an innocent child. It’s about judgment. If the woman exercised “poor judgment”, the baby’s life is worth something. If she had no choice, then tough luck kid, you’re a goner.

    To be truly pro-life based on the sanctity of life, I submit BiW that you can give no quarter to those who would make the woman’s choice to have sex a factor in the abortion decision.

  26. Is something wrong with your reading comprehension?

    I said I can’t make that compromise. The fact that I can understand an argument that others can make does not mean that I agree with it, or condone it.

    And if I were “squishy” on the potential outcomes based on the intital facts, it would still only indicate that I believe as many in the country used to, namely that choices have consequences.

    But it was a nice try at having cake and eating it too. Better luck next time.

  27. The idea that the separation of church and state means that the Church is obligated to ignore a person’s actions because they were performed as a part of the state is just … well, … stupid.

    First, Wickle, so good to see you back at the blog. I basically agree with you that the church has every right to be concerned about how its members exercise the beliefs of the church. That’s why I have little patience for Representative Kennedy. I do think that for hard core separation of church and state folks, the influence that religious belief has on a legislator’s decisions is of some concern. However I’ll acknowledge we live in a religious country so this influence is virtually unavoidable.

  28. The fact that I can understand an argument that others can make does not mean that I agree with it, or condone it.

    So I can safely say you understand a woman wanting full control over her body, even though you don’t condone it. Right?

  29. In the case of incest or a severely disformed baby, early abortion to me is the lesser of two unfortunates.

    Fascinating. Well first, as a former “disformed” baby, I’m damn glad you weren’t calling the shots while I was in the womb. (See … I have very personal reasons for not being gung-ho about abortion.) Second, you think it’s better to be dead than to find out your Daddy is also your granddaddy? You’re on a fence about whether you’d rather be dead than know that your Daddy brutally attacked your Mom and you were the result. But your Daddy also being your Uncle is a show-stopper.

    I’m not really criticizing you … just pointing out how PERSONAL these decisions are. It’s one of the reasons I hesitate to have the government get in the middle of it. Personally, I don’t think there is any legit reason to have an abortion other than to save the life of the mother. But I’m not ready to have the government impose my belief on the women of this country. I also think my lack of a vagina partly disqualifies me to make the call on this.

  30. Oh Rabbit …. for what it’s worth … keep paying off the house. Bronson will understand one day that Mommy had to work full time, but it will be harder to explain to him that Daddy broke a contract with his bank, which is fundamentally wrong. You’re right … guilt either way but day care is the lesser of two evils.

  31. So I can safely say you understand a woman wanting full control over her body, even though you don’t condone it. Right?

    You mean do I understand that some want a murder for convenience to not be murder, but about their “rights” alone? Yes, I do understand that. I just don’t think that there “my body, my choice” ever makes it acceptable. Maybe you’re ok with the contradiction of government allowing the taking of life without due process and without any urgent or exigent circumstances. Surely you’ll forgive me for noting the irony of a crusader for ‘civil rights’ such as yourself arguing in favor of such a proposition, especially when “my body, my choice” gets trumped by your support of a health care takeover by government that compells me to buy the insurance it approves, and will necessarily limit my choices to the treatments it deems appropriate for me.

  32. Rabbit, I have had to sometimes remind clients that remaining in a contract is not always the best choice for them. (And just to disuade any who might want to fall into finger-pointing and recrimination, sometimes there are legitimate reasons why a court might not even enforce a contract, regardless of the intentions of the parties.)

    What makes life interesting is the fact that sometimes there is never a good option. As a father of two young boys, I can also look them in the eyes and tell them with certainty that I never favored a lending institution over the importance of them spending their most formative years with a stranger instead of their parents, or grandparents, who in our case are also very strong and nurturing role models. Of course, my oldest has Asperbergers and my youngest has speach issues due to complications with his hearing, so before they were of school age, I wouldn’t have drempt of entrusting their everyday well-being to strangers anyway.

  33. Rabbit,

    Call me old-fashioned as I’ve never become comfortable with the “progressive” mantra of personal government dependency, lying when convenient, and “for self”, but I still believe in the good advice that the true measure of a man is his word.

    One of the biggest problems we’ve got today, and perhaps the biggest problem with our own government, is too many people reneging on promises and agreements because “of the circumstances”.

    I’ve got many faults and my own children, now pretty much grown, recognize them. But if you ultimately want the respect of your own young son, then keep your word each and every time no matter how many people are not and no matter who is looking.

    Good advice from your old friend… :wink:

  34. Rutherford, I meant severely deformed. Like born with no working brain, or without a heart.

    What does bug me is that you will take the rarest of circumstances and form them into a sort of high road on abortion. Yet, you REFUSE to do the most obvious. Watch an abortion. Learn what it really is.

    I’ve challenged you several times to honestly learn what happens by simply using your senses. Until you do so, you really are too much a coward for me to have this conversation with. I beg of you to learn what an abortion is and then apply it to who gets them and why.

    To take the rarest of circumstances and then frame them as the crux of your argument opens Pandora’s box for every other debate we could possibly have here. Enjoy being a hypocrite in every other facet of life. You have now become a “what if” magnet.

    When I said severely deformed, I meant babies born with out a brain or a heart. I also assume that babies born from incest would have major deformities while also being born world due to an abomination that will carry one as their legacy.

    .06% Rutherford. .06%.

    Hell, what are the stats of lightening strikes?

  35. Hey Rutherford, :lol:

    You better than anyone else know how I love to snoop around reading someone’s blog personals. And I admit that I have on occasion, used it as ammunition to hammer my opponent. I think I have found the perfect blog mate for you.

    I took a look at Cassandra’s blog and man, this is the female Rutherford persuasion. You can’t toe the lib line any better than this one. Complete with “progressive” help books, how to raise children the “liberal” way, the whole politically correct vernacular, feel good stories about multiculturalism, etc…Hopefully, she will stick around so you have company. And Rutherford – here is the best part: she’s not Ugly Kay! This one is actually pretty cute!

    Curator is not really you because he personifies the “angry” lib; the Van Jones type. This Cassandra has the “touchy feel” of liberal rubeism down to a fine art. You’re going to love her!!!

  36. You know Rutherford, you have touched on a subject that is finally worthy of discussion, because as I have said before that this is what truly separates us…

    You believe that government is of the highest order of law and dictates moral authority. I say it is not. I assume you do recognize that?

  37. Bic,

    I’m guilty many times of reading through an article and applying it to my own as I go, so I read it twice to make sure I caught the gist of commentary. I did. And in reading it, I noted this:

    And it ceased, and God granted them all things for which they had striven, and the heart of a beast in the place of a man’s heart was given. . .

    Many times our blog author as do the commentators on his favorite, feckless TV channel MSNBC will ask, “If there is a God, how could a loving God allow this to happen?” Even the premise of their question is personally offensive, as it really an affront to God but the conversation generally turns to something like…

    …to Rutherford’s chagrin when ask, I respond with a scripture which he thinks but trivial excuse.

    Except the LORD build the house, they labor in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman wake but in vain.

    The idea of free will, natural laws and a fallen world escapes Rutherford, Curator and many of the other lost sheep that frequent here. The idea of “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding” is completely foreign to Rutherford and company. Their’s is an arrogance, a hubris that it impossible that there is a plan much more than their man-centered universe, never mentioning they can’t possibly explain how, what and why we are even here. To them it is a weakness to admit that a Creator would guide the hand of man – including those who penned the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta.

    And they compound their error by making the foolish conjecture of there is no God or an evil, imperfect God by the actions and deeds of fallible men such as myself, never understanding we are simply followers with the same struggles they share. But we do believe.

    And I can only conclude it is my own tenets concerning faith vs. their secular nature in that which really leads and controls, that we can come to such diametrically opposed positions concerning anything of significance.

  38. And I forgot to add to my favorite lib blogger Rutherford,

    “Thank you for the use of your blog to allow these exchanges. I have no idea if anything good comes of it besides my amusement and I assume your own, but without your work, none of this would happen. I salute you for job well done. I do not know whom you will give your Thanksgiving, whether some nebulous, unknown God or Keith Olbermann, Barney Frank and MSNBC, but I do wish you and yours a Happy Thanksgiving. Tell your lovely wife thank you for allowing her husband the time to entertain me.” ~Tex

  39. Their’s is an arrogance, a hubris that it impossible that there is a plan much more than their man-centered universe, never mentioning they can’t possibly explain how, what and why we are even here.

    Arrogance isn’t a bad characterization of it, or as I like to point out to those who fancy themselves as aitheists, “It isn’t that you don’t believe it God, you just attempt to replace him with yourself.”

    You want real fun? Introduce a self-styled “secular humanist” to the roots of his religion:

    http://tinyurl.com/d3pxqj

    Good times, good times.

  40. I seem to remember a certain Dimwit telling us that we were all nuts because we had some reservations about the claims being made about global warming. All we had to do was look to the “science” and it would be irrefutable. When that certain Dimwit was challenged to explain causes, she simply said she didn’t want to and ran back to her hole.

    Well, it would appear that we were right to have questions. We’ve argued for many moons that those promoting global warming were being intellectually dishonest about the whole thing- refusing to debate issues, refusing to release raw data and engaging in character assassinations to detour the debate. The emails that came available over the weekend prove an intentional effort on the part of the global warming promoters to hide information- if not destroy it out right-, to attack institutions that may offer a different perspective and certainly a multitude of character assassinations of those who are not in lock step with them.

    So R, when are we going to get a post on this? In light of some of these reservations, shouldn’t we be just a little skeptical of the “science” on this before we spend trillions of dollars and destroy thousands of jobs?

    ClimateGate Totally Ignored By TV News Outlets Except Fox

    By Noel Sheppard
    November 24, 2009 – 11:03 ET

    The Obama administration has another reason to hate Fox: it appears to be the only national television news outlet in America interested in the growing ClimateGate scandal.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/24/climategate-totally-ignored-tv-news-outlets-except-fox

    Treemometers: A new scientific scandal
    If a peer review fails in the woods…

    By Andrew Orlowski

    A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers.

    At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC’s assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre CRU at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

    “Climate Gate” Development: CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA

    By Chris Horner on 11.24.09 @ 9:46AM

    Today, on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, I filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal – for nearly three years – to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.

    http://spectator.org/blog/2009/11/24/climate-gate-development-cei-f

    Or you can go here…

    http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091124/full/462397a.html

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024993.php

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html

    http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/violating_the_principle_of_sci.html

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/emails-that-damn-cru-head-jones

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/proof-skeptics-are-right-about-agw

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/post-your-favorite-cru-emaildocs-here

    http://www.businessinsider.com/download-the-entire-leaked-climate-emails-2009-11

    http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/23/climategate-heats-up-global-warming-debate-before-copenhagen/

  41. Well first, and not to pick a fight, but yeah I guess I’m picking a fight. I find it incredible that three men offer Rabbit advice. Two laymen and an attorney (if I recall BiW is an attorney). The two laymen advise Rabbit to fulfill his obligation and the attorney encourages him to break the law. Perhaps I’m just beginning to get a glimmer why the legal profession is so despised in this country. ;-)

    Tex, thanks for your research on Cassandra but I actually visited her blog before she visited mine. And yes, I love her politics. I added her to my blogroll as soon as I discovered her.

    As usual Tex and BiW assume that because I am a religious skeptic, I think I have all the answers. I am very comfortable saying there are things about life I don’t understand and I don’t need to believe in a “higher power” to get those answers. There is nothing more humble than saying “I don’t know” and leaving it at that. What is arrogant is to claim with certainty that a God exists for which you have absolutely no proof whatsoever. To wear one’s faith as a badge of honor and morality when faith is just the abandonment of reason and analysis.

    If faith comforts you, gives you strength, and even gives you a path to a moral code, in all honesty, more power to you. I do believe many folks would be much worse off without their faith than with it.

  42. By the way, here is a great quote from scientist Richard Dawkins regarding atheism:

    “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

    This quote almost inspired an article from me but then the Hasan rampage at Fort Hood happened and I felt the timing was bad. I may write about it one of these days.

  43. Sorry, but that Dawkins quote is actually just his usual prattling, trying to get a reaction.

    My rebuttal would be that that would be like saying that I reject all answers for 1+1 except 2, and so I should go one step further and reject that one, too.

    Those of us who hold to a faith believe that there is a real, right, and knowable answer to Who God is. I know Him. Yes, that does by definition mean that I believe that others are wrong.

    What we’re seeing here is that ongoing problem of speaking different languages. What I’m saying might well make no sense to an atheist, but most people of faith — whether my faith or not — get it.

  44. Rabbit, I’m pretty sure it takes a couple of generations of “in-breeding” for incest to result in medical abnormalities. I don’t think the random brother screwing his sister is gonna pop out a three eyed monster. My interpretation, and I could be wrong, is that the “exception” for abortions with incest victims was more about the moral stigma on the child than any medical consideration. And again, I say I’d rather deal with the stigma than not be given a chance at life.

    You keep wanting me to “see” an abortion and that will somehow make me discard any concern for the women who make this choice. I don’t need to see it Rabbit. I know it would make me vomit. It would disgust me. It might keep me up at night. But it wouldn’t suddenly make the conclusion simple.

    Do me a favor and take it in a legal direction for one moment, much as Chris Matthews tried to do with Bishop Tobin. If we go back pre-Roe, what is your suggested punishment? Do you want doctors thrown in jail as murderers? Life terms? Or execution since it is premeditated murder? Should the women be imprisoned also? Once we make abortion illegal, where do you want to go with the guilty?

    I think that is a fair question. Bishop Tobin didn’t want to go there, saying basically “it’s wrong but don’t ask me what to do about it”. What would you do Rabbit?

  45. Yes, that does by definition mean that I believe that others are wrong.

    That’s all that Dawkins is saying. Most religious people say their God is the only God, hence they don’t “believe” in anyone else’s God. This makes them atheists with respect to “other Gods”. All Dawkins is saying is that the true atheist just goes that one step further and discards ALL Gods.

    I found his construction quite clever. The devout Christian is a religious skeptic with respect to (pick an extreme example) Scientology.

  46. Do me a favor and take it in a legal direction for one moment, much as Chris Matthews tried to do with Bishop Tobin. If we go back pre-Roe, what is your suggested punishment? Do you want doctors thrown in jail as murderers? Life terms? Or execution since it is premeditated murder? Should the women be imprisoned also? Once we make abortion illegal, where do you want to go with the guilty?

    Are you predicating your question on the conclusion that such a result is silly, or unjustified?

  47. Are you predicating your question on the conclusion that such a result is silly, or unjustified?

    Sorry BiW, I call that a dodge. I’m predicating the question on the fact that our legal system assigns penalties for laws broken. I want to see how far down the road pro-life folks have thought things through. What will be the penalties, meaningful penalties? And does the penalty make you re-think criminalization?

  48. Sorry BiW, I call that a dodge. I’m predicating the question on the fact that our legal system assigns penalties for laws broken.

    Yeah, I seem to remember something about that when I aced my Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure courses.

    I want to see how far down the road pro-life folks have thought things through. What will be the penalties, meaningful penalties? And does the penalty make you re-think criminalization?

    And I read it as you trying to lead the witness, and I wanted some confirmation of that before I answered.

  49. R has some interesting mental gymnastics going on over at the KSM thread. Would love your expert opinion if possible.

    Won't be able to get to it until tonight, but if his conclusions are as sound as that noted legal genius, Eric "No conflict here" Holder, then I imagine it's fairly entertaining.

  50. Wickle,

    I’m surprised that Dawkins has the nerve to even prattle publicly after Ben Stein proved him to be an absolute dimwitted demagogue at the end of “Exposed.” Dawkins looked like the self-absorbed fool and even many atheists admitted as much.

    In addition, Dawkins account of going one step further would be completely wrong – including the disciples of what would later be called Islam. Allah was adopted from and worshiped at the Ka’ba in Mecca by Arab pagans before Muhammad arrived. Before Muhammad, Allah was simply the top of the hierarchy of many gods.

    Virtually all religions of antiquity were polytheistic – so as usual, Rutherford has quoted from someone who is clueless about historical religion. But at least Rutherford didn’t dance around the point that for all practical purposes, he is an atheist this time. :wink:

  51. I don’t think that rejecting falsehood is skepticism. Again, we have that language problem … I’m not skeptical that 1+1 is 3 or 9 or 256, it’s that I know that the right answer is 2.

    Those who think anything else are simply wrong. Dawkins leaves out the possibility that there is an objective reality, and thus a right answer. Sure, he’s skeptical that I can know the right answer … but that simply makes him wrong.

    It’s a big part of why certain atheists think that Dawkins is very clever and most believers just roll our eyes. He has made no effort whatsoever to understand religious believers, though he talks about us a lot.

    It’s also why philosophy students and professors, even atheists, consider his arguments weak. Dawkins is playing to his audience, but nothing else.

  52. “Do me a favor and take it in a legal direction for one moment, much as Chris Matthews tried to do with Bishop Tobin. If we go back pre-Roe, what is your suggested punishment? Do you want doctors thrown in jail as murderers?”-Rutherford

    Yeah. I don’t have a problem with that. 20 years in prison and the loss of one’s medical license. If a women gets caught doing it at home, she faces something close to the same thing.

    Sure, there would be some illeagal abortions. But, times have changed. A pregnancy out of wedlock doesn’t make a woman the outcast it used to. Plus, most women who desired it wouldn’t do it at home on their own.

    What is so outrageous about that? We live in a society where you can go to prison for quite a while just for getting popped doing drugs a few times. If it’s kosher to lock someone up for minding their own business, getting high, why is it so much of a stretch for you to lock someone up for dicing up a defenseless human being?

    Making abortions illeagal would cut down on a massive amount of abortions.

    It’s not perfect. I don’t have the rape or incest thing figured out. However, anything is better then the status quo.

    As for you claiming that you need not witness an abortion, I call bull shit.

    It must be nice keeping an abortion in some theoretical dimension. You liberals abhor common sense. I know looking at something and saying, “You know what, that is beyond fucked up” is deemed unsophisticated to you.

    You’re a coward for not learning exactly what an abortion is. Learn how the baby often responds to them. See it.

    You claim that you wouldn’t be able to sleep. You also are aware that 95% are done for cosmetic or economic reasons.

    Add it up. You don’t find the staus quo unacceptable?

  53. Why even the need to discuss what happens to the women who choose abortion? Another red herring thrown up by the pro-death crowd.

    If “the product” is not available, the point is moot.

  54. Where is Wally when you need him?

    Ah, Mr. Curator? Remember when you were bragging last evening about Obama’s successes with respect to the economy and financial situation. You should add this to his list. I would add it to your miserable blog, but the less you know about me, the better for me. I have a difficult enough time keeping the local libs at bay to the entrance of neighborhood (and we worry about the children).

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/obama-shatters-spending-record-year-presidents/

    Congratulations on another outstanding achievement by your Dear Leader. :wink:

  55. Rabbit, please don’t use our drug laws to justify abortion laws. Our drug laws don’t work. Most drugs should be de-criminalized, with the focus shifted from incarceration to prevention and medical treatment.

    If I accept your cosmetic/economic statistic for abortion, then the status quo is unacceptable. The problem is that I see abortion laws to be a similar ethical dilemma as the following:

    Bob needs a kidney transplant to stay alive. Jim is a compatible kidney donor and can live with just one kidney. So the government compels Jim to give up the kidney to Bob. You don’t see a medical ethics problem there? Care must be taken when we allow the government to intervene between patient and doctor.

    Now, just so you know that I can be honest about the matter, We don’t allow doctors to commit mercy killing (euthanasia). We don’t care if the patient begs for it. If a doctor kills a patient who wants to die, the government prosecutes the doctor. So there is obviously precedent for the gov intervening between patient and doctor.

    What frustrates me about this discussion Rabbit is how you fail to acknowledge the complexity of the issue. Tossing up your “women who want abortions are irresponsible and trivial” argument allows you to objectify them, and make their concerns irrelevant.

    One more question. Do you not agree that late term abortions are considerably more disturbing than let’s say “the morning after pill”? Can you acknowledge some shades of grey there?

  56. To Tex and Wickle, you both know more about Dawkins than do I so I will for the time being concede that he might not be the best source for quotes. I just took the quote at face value.

    Then again, Ben Stein having a problem with him does not move me much. (“Clear-Eyes is AWESOME”) LOL :-)

  57. They’ll probably mix in a few shoots of Lenin’s tomb, something about Ramadan and a Kwanzaa celebration to boot – being that Oprah is “spiritual and all”.

    Hey Bro, you got a problem with Kwanzaa? :-(

  58. But at least Rutherford didn’t dance around the point that for all practical purposes, he is an atheist this time. :wink:

    Oh how I hate labels. ;-) Sorry atheist is too strident for me. God may very well have put all this in place. If He did, I suspect he walked away and moved on to the next project. OR He intervenes on a basis completely incomprehensible to man (that business about working in mysterious ways).

    Arguing with you about the existence of God is like arguing with you about whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow. Some rare galactic catastrophe could blot the sun out in an instant. I don’t worry about it. Nothing I can do about it. If God is “up there”, nothing I can do about that either.

    I can tell you that Man is a piss-poor representative of God. If that makes me an atheist then so be it, but I don’t think that makes me an atheist.

  59. And I read it as you trying to lead the witness, and I wanted some confirmation of that before I answered.

    Leading the witness is harmful only in its ultimate effect on the jury’s verdict. In this case, the jury pool is already contaminated (Tex and Rabbit prime examples) so I think you are safe to answer the question. ;-)

  60. G, you’ll find your climate change comment up at 48. My apologies about not approving it sooner but unlike my moderation queue, I only check my SPAM queue at the end of the night and for some reason, your comment hit my SPAM queue.

  61. Rabbit, please don’t use our drug laws to justify abortion laws. Our drug laws don’t work. Most drugs should be de-criminalized, with the focus shifted from incarceration to prevention and medical treatment.

    That’s quite a leap, Sparky. On what basis do you find that drugs should be decriminalized? And what do you believe could be done more effectively in terms of prevention? Further, why should we focus on prevention and medical treatment for users and potential users if we are going to make this a matter of “choice” as well? Should we be focusing on medical treatment for alcoholics, too? Afterall, we keep hearing from users how pot is less harmful than alcohol.

    If I accept your cosmetic/economic statistic for abortion, then the status quo is unacceptable. The problem is that I see abortion laws to be a similar ethical dilemma as the following:

    Bob needs a kidney transplant to stay alive. Jim is a compatible kidney donor and can live with just one kidney. So the government compels Jim to give up the kidney to Bob. You don’t see a medical ethics problem there? Care must be taken when we allow the government to intervene between patient and doctor.

    You lost me. Rabbit says that 95% percent of these legalized murders are undertaken for economic or cosmetic reasons and you liken it to a nonexistant scenario where government compels one person to donate an organ to another? What?
    Government recriminalizing an act of murder is the same as government compelling one person to give up an organ to save another? On what planet do you get that apple and orange to equate?

    Now, just so you know that I can be honest about the matter, We don’t allow doctors to commit mercy killing (euthanasia).

    Really? Those legislators who passed the assisted suicide in Oregon a few years ago must feel pretty surprised to learn what you just said.

    We don’t care if the patient begs for it.

    They don’t have to beg. They just have to ask.

    If a doctor kills a patient who wants to die, the government prosecutes the doctor.

    If they directly do so, then yes.

    So there is obviously precedent for the gov intervening between patient and doctor.

    Yes. Believe it or not, government used to recognize the benefit to society to try to preserve life, and not by ridiculous hypotheticals by which a person is compelled to give up an organ to save someone else, but by things like laws against killing unborn children, even suicide,and yes, even outlawing that historically legal medical procedure referred to as abortion.

    What frustrates me about this discussion Rabbit is how you fail to acknowledge the complexity of the issue. Tossing up your “women who want abortions are irresponsible and trivial” argument allows you to objectify them, and make their concerns irrelevant.

    What frustrates me is a continual campaign to take something simple…an act of premeditated murder, and feign “complexity” as a smokescreen to declare a “right” to murder, invested in the mother, because they can always think of an excuse why they don’t want to be pregnant, but often cannot seem to recall this at the time of conception. So for a reason no more substantial than vanity, “economics”, convenience, etc., a life in being gets snuffed out, without any say in its own fate.

    A parent knows, unless they are enormously selfish and self-centered, that having a child is a game-changer. Your priorities change. The “concerns of the woman”, while not irrelevant, are also not a licence to kill. You don’t want the child? Then give it up for adoption. There are always people looking to adopt. I know. i used to spend plenty of time in family court. 9 months is not forever. Death is.

    One more question. Do you not agree that late term abortions are considerably more disturbing than let’s say “the morning after pill”? Can you acknowledge some shades of grey there?

    The Supreme Court has no respect from me with regard to this arbitrary line argument, especially since as science and our understanding of fetal development progressed, they had to start moving their arbitrary line. That means that what once was legally accepted termination one year wasn’t in the following year. So, if you could face Baby A who was killed in year one, but couldn’t be in the following year,what do you say? “Oops. Our bad.”?

    Once again, your question implies that the visceral emotional response should dictate the result, rather than a logical conclusion. “Taking the morning after pill ‘terminates’ a ‘blob of cells'” but “Partial Birth Abortion is getting a unborn child in to the birth canal, and killing it” Of course the gut reaction is that the first doesn’t seem as heinous as the last, but the fact remains is that the only variable between the two is the timing, and the only thing that could possibly cause me to think differently about it is if pregnant women started to give birth to something other than human beings.

  62. Rutherford, Happy Thanksgiving. I only have a moment as I’m scanning the world before I have to leave for the in-laws. I don’t want this to sound like proselytizing. Think of it as an insult that I have challenged you. :wink:

    Can I tell you something truthfully. And I mean this with all my heart. When you say I have absolutely no proof of God, I believe it is the silliest statement you make or could possibly make. It’s like you are standing in your own living room and asking for proof there was a builder of the home, or asking for proof of the light as you’re staring at the sun, or arguing if water is wet, because wet may be dry to someone else.

    Even in your “most leftist” moments and I adamantly disagree with you like this NYC trial, I will concede there is another side of discussion. But when you deny the obvious, then I must believe that you actually have to work at your denial and are simply looking for a reaction for all the jazz I give you. If you are to deny there is a Creator of a physical universe, no matter who or how you would like to define that Creator, then you are fooling no one but yourself. To argue about who that Creator is? Well, that is a fair argument. But to deny the most obvious is beneath you. I know you are more clever than that.

    And I tell you all of that because you live a very dangerous existence. You of all people here probably better understand the brevity of life. I’m a year older than you, never have suffered the constraints you have, and I’m feeling it. I feel awful this morning, am beginning to experience signs of arthritis and am starting to feel very mortal. You must be feeling the same. We are running out of time.

    So here is my wish his year for you. And this time as a friend. If you’ve ever taken my advice, take this. This next year, challenge yourself to learn something of a Creator – not the superficial fluff you hear on TV, but perhaps some intense personal study. Take it from the science side, if that helps.

    No matter how obtuse I find you, you are a worthy challenge when it comes to political matters. You’ve gone about as far as you can go with that. It is a hobby for both of us, but I challenge you to take a break and try a different path about something far more interesting, important and challenging that idiot politics. I believe you would find it mentally stimulating if you gave it the chance.

    I’ll answer my “moot” question about abortion this evening when I get back and I’m alone.

    I hope you have a good day today and enjoy your family. I hope you are feeling well. We both are old enough to know moments like today are too rare and important.

  63. “Tossing up your “women who want abortions are irresponsible and trivial” argument allows you to objectify them, and make their concerns irrelevant.”-Rutherford

    Objectify. I will add that one to my list I’m putting together on the liberal vernacular.

    Happy Thanksgiving. I’m going to objectify the hell out of some Turkey.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s