The Political Agenda of the Christian Right

[Father Time]

no?....i would think that a "God" would need to know a HELL OF A LOT about Science to create things ...especially living things....try it sometime....see how it goes....

You cannot make a single experiment or method that would prove or falsify the existence of God so it's not science.

You also can't prove that at the exact center of a the moon lies a single "Chicken McNugget". So, how likely is it that at the exact center of the moon, there lies a single "Chicken McNugget"? The exact same likelihood of a "magical Gawd".

You can drill to the exact center of the moon and look for a chicken mcnugget.

 

[DiamondDave]

No. I'm pointing out that sharing doesn't necessarily mean mixing. But whatever. The mother's blood does interact with the baby.

Just as your exhalation interacts with my exhalation... you're wrong on this.. every aspect of it.. and you're backpedaling like a sonofabitch

My life is not dependent on your exhalation. There is considerable difference. Your exhalation does not feed me or remove wasteproducts from my body.

Oh.. ok.. so those that depend on the healthcare my monies will provide.. .or the operations someone else will do.. are dependent.. .hence not able to have value on their own without that care... so my decision or the doctor's decision on whether they are valuable enough to let live supplants their right to life??? You take entitlements that others provide... that can feed you and remove your waste... time for you to meet the axe and wood chipper, buddy....

What next?? you have thoughts??? Well, many could have the opinion that you don't think much at all and are of no benefit.... no more contribution than much more of a burden on society or others than an unborn child.... call Dr. Kevorkian

Either you wish to protect all innocent human life, dependent on others or not... or you wish to subjectively judge who is worthy of life...

selective equality, yet again

 

[DiamondDave]

The agenda of Christian conservatives is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:

They want to control the right of women to have abortions.

They want to ban all forms of gay marriage.

They want to prevent the teaching of safe sex in schools and to encourage home schooling.

They want to ban the use of contraceptives.

They want to halt stem cell reserach using human embryos.

They want to stop the teaching of evolution and/or to start the teaching of intelligent design.

They want to bring God into the public square and eliminate the separation of church and state.

They want to overturn the legality of living wills.

They want to control the sexual content of cable and network television, radio and the Internet.

They want to eliminate an "activist" judiciary that limits or impinges on their agenda by placing God-fearing judges on the bench who will promote their sincerely held beliefs.

From "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John W. Dean (p. 109)

I don't know about y'all, but this doesn't sound too good to me.

Comments?

Wow.. where do we begin to debunk this crapola??

They wish to protect innocent human life... whether that life inconveniences you or not

Some wish to ban gay marriage.. but others wish to support civil unions or to get the government out of the marriage business

Encouraging home schooling as a choice is a bad thing in a free society??

They wish to encourage the involvement of parents into the sex education of minors and that is a bad thing? They wish to teach that no sex is safe sex and that is a bad thing? They don't want a bunch of lefty teachers telling them that sex is OK and right when they are under age, even against the parents wishes, and that is a good thing??

They want to ban contraceptives?? Show this in proof.

They wish to stop harvesting of human lives for scientific research... Last I heard human experimentation was frowned upon when we heard of the experiments of ones such as Mengele

Nobody wants to stop teaching scientific theories such as evolution, or other things. Just not the use of theories to try and offend the beliefs of others, and just to also teach that there are indeed othe rtheories about the emergence of life.

THERE IS NO MOTHERFUCKING SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, you ignorant leftist swine... try and understand what your rights and the limitations of government actually are

Show proof of making living wills illegal as supported by the entire 'christian right'.. we'll be waiting

Public decency laws are indeed supported.. for some people do believe (christian and otherwise) it is nice to have it that your children don't have to be exposed to anal sex acts in public or obscene behavior on public tv at 6PM dinner, etc... some people indeed, and rightfully so, don't necessarily want anarchy in public displays

More phony accusations by you and/or the author as a winger about judges and about a belief of an entire group

Sigh!

Magical creation is not a theory. Scientific theories are based on existing data.
You can lead a horse to water, but you........

And teh data showing what sparked the beginning of life is where??

Don't post again til you provide it

 

[Coyote]

Ahhh.. arguing with you on this is like clubbing a baby seal.. you are indeed clueless

Typical "Rightie" response: ad hominem

1) A nursing infant would simply die, and quickly, if not TOTALLY dependent on the mother for ALL aspects of life except respiration.... and even with respiration, without a mother to prevent choking from spitting up or being face down, the infant is dependent on the mother

Wrong. Any adult can take care of an infant and meet it's needs.

2) Innocent is not highly subjective... It s what it is... your mantra of 'value' is subjective... for there are plenty social parasites that many people would deem without value....

Innocent is very subjective and relational. What is an innocent person? When a person assaults another - the victim is "innocent" but that victim may in turn have stolen a candy bar several years ago...not "innocent"....not innocent in that situation. We decide that those we condemn to capital punishment are not "innocent" and deserve to lose their lives based on what that court, in that country, determines at that time. Why should the value of life depend on "innocence"?

3) I did not advocate taking away the life of any innocent human... you did... nice try

If you support the death penalty then you do, because innocent people have been put on death row. Nice try though.

4) If a woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy... I am indeed concerned.. the motherfucking fact is that in the VAST majority of abortions, the mother's life in not in danger.. it is inconvenienced

So you consider the life-changing experience of birthing and raising a child to be an inconvenience? I don't.

Much like a lefty with views on selective equality.. the views of selective value to an innocent life are also prevalent

Much like a "rightie" - generalizations and ad hominems over discussion.

 

[jillian]

The one that has the human genetic makeup, silly

Just because my mom may look like a rhinoceros, does not make her one

an egg has the same genetic make-up as a chicken. but an egg ISN'T a chicken.

the answer is that life exists on a continuum. and when something becomes human is a matter or judgment, moral and otherwise.... which is why no one basing their determination of that issue on a religious belief has any business making that moral judgment for anyone but themselves.

 

[Coyote]

Just as your exhalation interacts with my exhalation... you're wrong on this.. every aspect of it.. and you're backpedaling like a sonofabitch

My life is not dependent on your exhalation. There is considerable difference. Your exhalation does not feed me or remove wasteproducts from my body.

Oh.. ok.. so those that depend on the healthcare my monies will provide.. .or the operations someone else will do.. are dependent.. .hence not able to have value on their own without that care... so my decision or the doctor's decision on whether they are valuable enough to let live supplants their right to life??? You take entitlements that others provide... that can feed you and remove your waste... time for you to meet the axe and wood chipper, buddy....

Interdependence is not total dependence. At what point does one entity have rights over body of another and who determines those rights?

What next?? you have thoughts??? Well, many could have the opinion that you don't think much at all and are of no benefit.... no more contribution than much more of a burden on society or others than an unborn child.... call Dr. Kevorkian

What makes a life valuable? Some nebulous concept of innocent?

Either you wish to protect all innocent human life, dependent on others or not... or you wish to subjectively judge who is worthy of life...

selective equality, yet again

No. Either you wish to protect all human life, or you wish to subjectively judge who is worthy of life...as you are doing.

selective equality

 

[DiamondDave]

Ahhh.. arguing with you on this is like clubbing a baby seal.. you are indeed clueless

Typical "Rightie" response: ad hominem

1) A nursing infant would simply die, and quickly, if not TOTALLY dependent on the mother for ALL aspects of life except respiration.... and even with respiration, without a mother to prevent choking from spitting up or being face down, the infant is dependent on the mother

Wrong. Any adult can take care of an infant and meet it's needs.



Innocent is very subjective and relational. What is an innocent person? When a person assaults another - the victim is "innocent" but that victim may in turn have stolen a candy bar several years ago...not "innocent"....not innocent in that situation. We decide that those we condemn to capital punishment are not "innocent" and deserve to lose their lives based on what that court, in that country, determines at that time. Why should the value of life depend on "innocence"?



If you support the death penalty then you do, because innocent people have been put on death row. Nice try though.

4) If a woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy... I am indeed concerned.. the motherfucking fact is that in the VAST majority of abortions, the mother's life in not in danger.. it is inconvenienced

So you consider the life-changing experience of birthing and raising a child to be an inconvenience? I don't.

Much like a lefty with views on selective equality.. the views of selective value to an innocent life are also prevalent

Much like a "rightie" - generalizations and ad hominems over discussion.

Typical lefty... digging yourself deeper and deeper

1) Any person can.. just as any woman with a functioning womb can take and nourish a developing fetus implanted into her... but if the person responsible does not do it, they are charged with anything from neglect to murder of the other human they are indeed taking care of... unless in self defense choices

2) The inclusion of all innocent lives pretty much takes care of it all... anyone who is not some murdering freakazoid deserves to have their life protected.. if you wish to argue that even mass murders lives need to be protected, knock yourself out.. I may disagree, but that shows the want to protect lives... supporting anything with abortion other than in cases where there is mortal jeopardy is putting the lives of dependent innocents under that of a mass murdering freak... and if you cannot see the problem with that, then you are indeed too far gone

3) I never condoned the taking of any innocent life.. and I have supported executions in only those cases where murderous guilt is thoroughly determined....

4) I don't consider it to be an inconvenience... but nice try.... it is those choosing abortions for reasons other than medical emergencies that are doing it our of convenience

You indeed have shown a propensity for selective equality and for devaluing the developing life of an unborn

You have had discussion and you have shown to bring out non-facts and propose that they are fact, even when shown otherwise.. glad you were not making a decision on my daughter when it was only a 10% chance she could survive outside the womb, because she was only potential to someone like you, but a life to her mother and I (and to the doctors who worked miracles on some little girl who would have easily died with 1 fraction of a mistake)

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The mother's blood does interact with the baby.

No, it doesn't, except during birth and when things go wrong.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Come to think of it...there does seem to be some mixing of blood...because otherwise you would not have the issue of Rh disease.

During any pregnancy a small amount of the baby's blood can enter the mother's circulation. If the mother is Rh negative and the baby is Rh positive, the mother produces antibodies (including IgG) against the Rhesus D antigen on her baby's red blood cells. During this and subsequent pregnancies the IgG is able to pass through the placenta into the fetus and if the level of it is sufficient, it will cause destruction of Rhesus D positive fetal red blood cells leading to development Rh disease. It may thus be regarded as insufficient immune tolerance in pregnancy. Generally Rhesus disease becomes worse with each additional Rhesus incompatible pregnancy.

Like most diseases, that's an example of things not going like they're supposed to.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If the blood were 'shared', no mother could ever have a child with a different blood type.

 

[DiamondDave]

My life is not dependent on your exhalation. There is considerable difference. Your exhalation does not feed me or remove wasteproducts from my body.

Oh.. ok.. so those that depend on the healthcare my monies will provide.. .or the operations someone else will do.. are dependent.. .hence not able to have value on their own without that care... so my decision or the doctor's decision on whether they are valuable enough to let live supplants their right to life??? You take entitlements that others provide... that can feed you and remove your waste... time for you to meet the axe and wood chipper, buddy....

Interdependence is not total dependence. At what point does one entity have rights over body of another and who determines those rights?

What next?? you have thoughts??? Well, many could have the opinion that you don't think much at all and are of no benefit.... no more contribution than much more of a burden on society or others than an unborn child.... call Dr. Kevorkian

What makes a life valuable? Some nebulous concept of innocent?

Either you wish to protect all innocent human life, dependent on others or not... or you wish to subjectively judge who is worthy of life...

selective equality, yet again

No. Either you wish to protect all human life, or you wish to subjectively judge who is worthy of life...as you are doing.

selective equality

So you have a kid on a respirator totally dependent on others for nourishment, waste removal, respiration, etc... you devalue that life... go ahead and pull the plug so you can protest for the life of a murderer...

Life makes life valuable... a murder's decisions and actions to take the lives of others is the action of devaluing the life of others and of their own life.. they actions brought the consequences... the unborn dependent child developing within has hurt nobody and is not taking the life away from another... and if that developing child is indeed causing the mother's life to be in jeopardy, that decision is there for persons to make.... when the decision to terminate the developing life is made when there is not that mortal danger, it is just like any other choice to take any other innocent life

You devalue the dependent developing life... the murder devalues their life and the life of others and takes the lives of others.... you support protecting the vile, I support protecting the innocent....

And funny... even if I did not support the death penalty... you would still be supportive of selectively terminating the innocent developing life... the murder of convenience

 

[☭proletarian☭]

No. I'm pointing out that sharing doesn't necessarily mean mixing. But whatever. The mother's blood does interact with the baby.

Just as your exhalation interacts with my exhalation... you're wrong on this.. every aspect of it.. and you're backpedaling like a sonofabitch

My life is not dependent on your exhalation. There is considerable difference. Your exhalation does not feed me or remove wasteproducts from my body.

Just pretend he's a tree and try again

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The agenda of Christian conservatives is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:

The agenda of Leftist Liberals is relatively limited and they believe that much of it can be accomplished through the federal courts. Broadly speaking, their agenda is as follows:
Tax
Spend

There fixed it for ya

Right....

you're thinking on neocons

This Leftist has been calling for massive slashes to the Fed for years

 

[Coyote]

Just as your exhalation interacts with my exhalation... you're wrong on this.. every aspect of it.. and you're backpedaling like a sonofabitch

My life is not dependent on your exhalation. There is considerable difference. Your exhalation does not feed me or remove wasteproducts from my body.

Just pretend he's a tree and try again

So you think a mother is nothing more than a tree and a fetus is just a passerby?

Interesting view on a life-changing relationship.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You cannot make a single experiment or method that would prove or falsify the existence of God so it's not science.

You also can't prove that at the exact center of a the moon lies a single "Chicken McNugget". So, how likely is it that at the exact center of the moon, there lies a single "Chicken McNugget"? The exact same likelihood of a "magical Gawd".

You can drill to the exact center of the moon and look for a chicken mcnugget.

What i I say it's a transcendent, undetectable Chicken Mcnugget?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

We already spent some 20 pages explaining this all to JD

go read it and stop being stupid

 

[Dr Gregg]

Did you have sex with the cleaning lady on your desk?

"Is that frowned upon here, I gotta say, I plead ignorance"

 

[☭proletarian☭]

an egg has the same genetic make-up as a chicken. but an egg ISN'T a chicken.

Assuming were talking about an egg that's going to hatch and not one from the store, the egg (if it's a chicken egg) contains a chicken in a early stage of biological and physiological development and maturity.

the answer is that life exists on a continuum. and when something becomes human is a matter or judgment,

No, it's not. By definition, it's a human if it is an organism that it s genetically human (has human DNA).


We spent 20 pages on this in the other thread

 

[Coyote]

So you have a kid on a respirator totally dependent on others for nourishment, waste removal, respiration, etc... you devalue that life... go ahead and pull the plug so you can protest for the life of a murderer...

No. That person is already born - is a person with rights.

Life makes life valuable... a murder's decisions and actions to take the lives of others is the action of devaluing the life of others and of their own life.. they actions brought the consequences... the unborn dependent child developing within has hurt nobody and is not taking the life away from another... and if that developing child is indeed causing the mother's life to be in jeopardy, that decision is there for persons to make.... when the decision to terminate the developing life is made when there is not that mortal danger, it is just like any other choice to take any other innocent life

You are still basing the value of life not on life but on the subjective yardstick of "innocence". Does a person who has hurt nobody have a greater right to life thann a person who has hurt someone?

Otherwise you would oppose the death penalty because there is always the possibility that the person is indeed "innocent".

You devalue the dependent developing life... the murder devalues their life and the life of others and takes the lives of others.... you support protecting the vile, I support protecting the innocent....

We are both devaluing human life. Either all human life is sacred or we each apply our subjective yardstick which values some human life over others. The "vile" is also subjective. What is "vile" in one persons eyes might not be in another. Who determines "vile"?

And funny... even if I did not support the death penalty... you would still be supportive of selectively terminating the innocent developing life... the murder of convenience

Are you sure of that? See, what you don't realize Diamond Dave - I'm not attempting to make "innocence" the measure by which life is valued. I fully realize the contradictions of my position where as you can not see the contradictions in your own. And my position is still evolving and probably will as long as I live because there will always be some people will bring good points in debate, that provoke thought. This is by no means a simple ethical problem.

 

[Coyote]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be.html

We already spent some 20 pages explaining this all to JD

go read it and stop being stupid

What - are you the last word on this or something?