|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Feb 15th, 2006 05:18 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I liked that part, too. 
|
|
| Feb 15th, 2006 05:03 PM | ||
| Dole |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 15th, 2006 02:22 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
This is a response I received on the above article I posted. It's from a Catholic relative of mine from Ireland: "I don't agree that Suozzi is on the right track. He sounds like he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Giving grants to Planned Parenthood is actually providing support to the largest purveyor of abortion in the world. I agree with funding for abtsinence programs of course,but funding the education of kids about artificial contraception is not going to help. Artificial contraception actually leads to more abortions. Many of the types of contraception are themselves abortifacient,e.g. the low dose pill and IUD both allow fertililization but make the uterus hostile to implantation. They also foster a more cavalier and more casual attitude towards sex, which is not part of God's plan for society. Hope you are getting on well!" I have no idea whether ot not she's right about those things, and I don't know that I even disagree with her. However, I find it interesting that she is probably in total agreement with the president of NARAL on this issue. This is a very good example of how the extremes on both ends are in total agreement to disagree, while the middle ground is left sorting it all out. Oh well. 
|
|
| Feb 14th, 2006 10:27 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Every action of government is necessarily a moral action if it is to be justified. | |
| Feb 14th, 2006 04:14 PM | ||
| kahljorn | I can't believe somebody would take my sarcastic advice literally! Those jerk-offs. | |
| Feb 14th, 2006 02:44 PM | ||
| Emu |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 14th, 2006 02:34 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Sort of in line with what we were just saying..... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Com...14_06_EJD.html February 14, 2006 Bridging the Divide on Abortion By E. J. Dionne Jr. NEW YORK -- For many staunch supporters and opponents of abortion rights, the search for a third way on the issue seems like so much phony political positioning. But the truth is that politicians are already engaging in strained positioning on abortion. They know there is a large ambivalent middle ground of public opinion that is uneasy with abortion itself and also uneasy with a government ban on the procedure. So they fudge. No one has been more masterful at holding his pro-life base and appealing to the middle than President Bush. He speaks regularly of his support for a ``culture of life'' but never says he would overturn Roe v. Wade. In Congress, supporters of abortion rights in both parties will signal their moderation by opposing partial-birth abortion or favoring parental notification laws for minors seeking abortions. Whatever their merits, such laws do little to cut the abortion rate. But there is a new argument on abortion that may establish a more authentic middle ground. It would use government not to outlaw abortion altogether, but to reduce its likelihood. And at least one politician, Thomas R. Suozzi, the county executive of New York's Nassau County, has shown that the position involves more than soothing rhetoric. Last May, Suozzi, a Democrat, gave an important speech calling on both sides to create ``a better world where there are fewer unplanned pregnancies, and where women who face unplanned pregnancies receive greater support and where men take more responsibility for their actions.'' Last week, Suozzi put money behind his words. He announced nearly $1 million in county government grants to groups ranging from Planned Parenthood to Catholic Charities for an array of programs -- adoption and housing, sex education and abstinence promotion -- to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to help pregnant women who want to bring their children into the world. Suozzi calls his initiative ``Common Sense for the Common Good'' and, as Newsday reported, he was joined at his news conference announcing the grants by people at both ends of the abortion debate. This is a matter on which no good deed goes unpunished, and Suozzi was immediately denounced by Kelli Conlin, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, for the grants that went to abstinence-only programs which, she insisted, do not work. As the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has argued for years, the best approach to the problem involves neither abstinence-only nor contraception-only programs, but a combination of the two. But the merits of the issue aside, it's unfortunate that Suozzi's initiative is caught in the crossfire of this year's campaign for governor of New York. Suozzi is expected to challenge state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination. NARAL strongly supports Spitzer, who opposes the ban on partial-birth abortion which Suozzi -- otherwise an abortion rights supporter -- favors. Still, it's a good sign for the long run that in an interview on Monday, Conlin was careful to praise most of Suozzi's grants program -- ``the vast majority of it we are totally in agreement with'' -- adding that ``prevention is the key.'' Nancy Keenan, the president of the national NARAL group, is also stressing prevention. Her organization ran an advertisement last year explicitly inviting the ``right-to-life movement'' to join in an effort to ``help us prevent abortions.'' Usually, NARAL's allies refer to abortion opponents as ``anti-choice,'' so the conciliatory language itself was a welcome departure. At the federal level, NARAL is pushing for a bill promoting contraception introduced by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, an opponent of abortion. Right about this point, I can see my friends in the right-to-life movement rolling their eyes and insisting that all this prevention talk is a dodge. Maybe so, but my question to them is whether they honestly think that their current political strategy, focused on knocking down Roe and making abortion illegal, will actually protect fetal life by substantially reducing the number of abortions. Even if Roe falls, legislatures in the most populous states are likely to keep abortion legal. And if a ban on abortion were ever to take hold, does anyone doubt that a large, illegal abortion industry would quickly come into being? I have more sympathy than most liberals with the right-to-life movement because I believe most right-to-lifers are animated not by sexism or some punitive attitude toward sexuality but by a genuine desire to defend the defenseless. Surely that view should encompass efforts to reduce the number of abortions in our nation. That's why I hope Tom Suozzi finds imitators, and allies on both sides of the question. © 2006, Washington Post Writers Group |
|
| Feb 10th, 2006 04:51 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I agree, you can't simply eliminate the problem without recognizing the circumstances and problems that lead to it. That's one of the problems our government has, lack of foresight, discrimination without option for alleviation. You have to look at the effects the laws you make will have, and you have to look at the reasons for the reasons you are making those laws and try to alleviate THOSE circumstances(otherwise you have a bunch of people out there with 'problems' that can't be alleviated except through 'extreme methods'). That's what my previous posts were attempting to point out. I think that education is very important, and I find it horrible that the government underrates it's ability to influence a nation, and seems to not really care too much about it. I'm sure there's some asshole who has said that education is the foundation of a successful nation, insert his quote here. I also find it hard to force a woman through 9 months of pregnancy for a baby they don't even want. Likewise, I find it deplorable that the woman got pregnant in the first place instead of controlling her urges(for all you feminists out there, i find the males actions to be just as deplorable, but the man doesn't have the responsibility of bearing children and being a responsible mother). Maybe we should forcefully chastize anyone who has sex outside of marriage, without the intent of having a child. STICK UP THE HASS I TELL YOU. If we want moral consistency in the government, though, I'm afraid that would be nearly impossible ;( For the same reasons lust is considered a carnal sin, so is greed, pride and whatever else motivates most of the government. |
|
| Feb 10th, 2006 04:20 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
I agree. And from a moral stance I think that same-sex unions shouldn't be allowed to have adopted children, but from a social stance I have to say that they SHOULD have them. Not only is it a double-standard to say they shouldn't, but it would also open up a new market for unwanted children. So, yes, I agree absolutely that criminalizing without supplanting is a mistake. |
|
| Feb 10th, 2006 04:14 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I think if government is going to jump into the world of morality, then it needs to strive for consistency. As derrida said, simply passing a law or overturning a court ruling won't end abortion. If the government wishes to overturn Roe v. Wade, then the government likewise needs to support daycare programs, intitiatives like the one in VA to implement free statewide Pre-K, funding Head Start programs, GRADS programs, Help Me Grow's, etc. Changing a law doesn't do anything. It simply criminalizes women. There needs to be more than that. |
|
| Feb 10th, 2006 02:36 PM | ||
| Sethomas | Obviously the government can't stop coat hanger jobs. But at least it can punish them when caught. As far as indirect abortion goes, I've stated that it should be legal. Even the Catholic Church supports that notion. I'm not sure if that's where you were going, but sure. | |
| Feb 10th, 2006 02:24 PM | ||
| derrida | Isn't government too unwieldy a tool to be used in the imposition of morality? The government can't restrict underground clinics or trips across the border for the well-heeled any more than it can ensure that a woman (or her doctor) being treated for uterine hemmorhaging aren't subject to suspicion. Is it because the traditional structures of family, community, and church are no longer able to enforce social norms that the government must step in and take their place? | |
| Feb 8th, 2006 08:55 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I read your article and I agree with what you were saying(my flu makes me impatient and unwordy). That really does take morality out of the equation for the government since nobody is making profits on it. I think the idea that people can act immorally and gain profit from it(and that these are the way things are often setup) is ridiculously unproductive, and really just sets up for future immoral actions. Personally, I'm for aligning things so there's no moral choice or profit involved, just reality I suppose. In that sense I can agree that the state and morality should be kept far away from eachother. However, I agree that you still have to recognize the effect abortion has on society, along with the other gratuities we graciously pass out. Which I guess was the entire point of my post, that the laws/rights that the government passes out have a huge effect on society and that we should choose them wisely if we want society to be something beautiful. Not that I care either way, I'm just talking from my Stickuptheass idealist side of my personality. I have to say, I don't really care if women get abortions. Some of them need it, and would probably live shitty unproductive lives without it. For the same reason I don't want people fucking all the time and having shitty children, I'd have to be pro-choice-- despite how much it hurts me inside. |
|
| Feb 8th, 2006 06:11 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I guess that is how I define morals, in a way, "Protecting the individual from everyone else". Most people can agree that they don't want to die, be stolen from or have anything else bad happen to them. There's plenty of morals people can agree on. Rather than being based on God or any religously inspired ideas, I tend to base my moral system around one that allows society to exist in a state in which people will be safe from other people, and also safe from themselves. It does absolutely no good to have a system of laws protecting citizens, wherein through their immoral actions/mind-frames they become capable of harming themselves. I sometimes think it's immoral to raise people into being masochistic shells of humanity. Personally I feel the morality of the government reflects upon the people, not only in a developmental fashion but also in more direct matters. Which is why I think Government should be some kind of moral epitemy. To me, the basic goal of the Government is the raising of healthy, productive citizens to further the development of the nation. Considering the government plays a large part in the education of it's citizens, I feel it should be capable of bringing children up to be moral citizens who are fully capable of thought and of whole-some moral character-- contributions to society. Without that you have a nation full of jackasses. Without the people within the nation, you have no nation nor culture. The individuals who comprise it are the most important thing(ideally). The more productive the citizens, the more productive the nation. However, I can see what you're saying. There's people who go, "It's wrong to commit murder" and other people who think it's immoral to worship any god but theirs. I guess where it starts to get fuzzy is when you start impeding people from being gluttonous slobs. It's kind of hard to say if it's moral to allow them to be filth(or, even worse, to lead them to it through a poorly structured culture), but just as hard to say they should be jailed or reeducated... which is precisely why I think it's important, developmentally, to be instilled with moral and character; to avoid ever having to deal with the above circumstances. Basically, how I feel about it is this: if it's immoral to beat, molest and instill your children with poor values why should it be any different for the government? What kind of parent are you if you raise children with poor moral values who can't function properly, non-the-less raise their own children. Self-perpetuating circumstances are kind of hard to get out of, and I don't really see any point to being a unifed group of people unless it's to alleviate these problems and evolve past them. You kind of have to look at it through, "Metaphysical consequence" and consider what will happen. Through the past, to the future; through mine eye a camel swalleth ;( And thanks for quoting me kevin, it makes me feel so special. p.s. Ever hear of this guy? |
|
| Feb 8th, 2006 03:55 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
That's one thing that really irks me about modern American politics, the symbiotic relationship between Libertarianism (particularly how manifest in the Neocon movement) and Conservativism. Conservatives look to the Libertarians for logical consistency (however myopic it may be), and the Libertarians look to the GOP for political hegemony. In the short run it works for them, but it accrues so much logical fallacy that it's painful. In the end it looks like they want a government who does nothing except defend the rich and tell everyone else not to do what they want. Aren't civil liberties and rights essentially an extension of morals; isn't law basically the personification of them? Do you propose an immoral government with an immoral Law? Morals don't necessarily need to be religion oriented. That depends on how you define morals. In a JS Mill/Thomas Hobbes manner, civil morality boils down to protecting the individual from everyone else, as "Homo homini lupus est" (Hobbes' favorite quote from Plautus). Religion adds to morality, but as Christ said, His "Kingdom is not of this world". Abortion has been shown, for example, to incur a great deal of suffering upon a human being. To overlook that for net convenience is no more consistent than infanticide. |
|
| Feb 8th, 2006 02:48 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
You, Sir, have arrived. Anyway, Seth, I agree with your outlook, which means I need to hurry up and buy your book. 
|
|
| Feb 7th, 2006 05:50 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
I thought that was part of the purpose of having a governing body. I'm not really saying that they (religion and government) should interfere with eachother one way or the other with that, though. Aren't civil liberties and rights essentially an extension of morals; isn't law basically the personification of them? Do you propose an immoral government with an immoral Law? Morals don't necessarily need to be religion oriented. I didn't read your whole essay because it was too long, so I don't know if you already discussed that. p.s. I have this belief that governments are partly responsible for the type of citizens it develops. |
|
| Feb 7th, 2006 05:33 PM | ||
| Sethomas | I think that society should be as moral as possible. But that's not the responsibility of the State. | |
| Feb 7th, 2006 01:47 PM | ||
| kahljorn |
Isn't the reason for all this scripture regarding sex(and contraceptives, despite not being mentioned in the bible) relate to the fact that sex is supposed to be a "Holy" or special thing, rather than something to simply throw around at whoever/whenever? If you look at that through, "Metaphysical consequence" couldn't there be a good reason for that rule? I'm not saying that a secular government shouldn't be able to do it's own thing, that's part of why I liked Kerry so much. However, how could any catholic who supports their religion possibly believe in allowing society to continually degrade itself further and further? How could any decent human being do that in general? To put it simply, the metaphysical consequence of allowing sex to reach the point it is now is tons of shitty people and children who can't be supported. Stupid girls who are sluts and aren't satisfied unless they are getting fucked everyday and getting knocked up. When sex has so little meaning attached to it, how about the result of them-- children? What is the metaphysical consequence of children who are accidents or inconvenieces? We've already stepped passed the point of the bible, fuck this contraceptive argument. Society has already entered into what the bible was supposed to prevent; why fight it? It has already failed. There's generally reasons why morals and such are designed, usually it has to do with the millions of unwed teenage mothers who's children will be drug addicts and mentally fucked in the head, incapable of donating much to society. But then, in our government who really cares. You're not supposed to be able to get divorced either, but for the convenience of catholics and christians and hindus and atheists and whoever else everywhere in the US; a treat. Abortion clinics might as well setup in convenience stores, between the porn isle and fly traps. Essentially, the bible was supposed to prevent an immoral society, but we've already stepped past that-- especially as pertaining to sex. p.s. I'm not saying that's the entire point of the bible, just one of it's more important facets especially in light of, "Metaphysical consequence". Also, I'm really tired so I didn't use shiny language in my post ;( |
|
| Feb 7th, 2006 11:39 AM | ||
| Sethomas | I understand what you were saying. I just take a metaphysical consequence approach to Scripture (I plan on writing a book on the subject), so I tend to believe that the Inspired Word is written like it is for a reason. I agree that, to Jesus, the whole thing was a non-issue; people were being assholes and wanted to trip him up, and he saw through it. But I also believe that God would have inspired it to be written a little differently if He wanted us to believe in absolute libertarianism or whatever else. | |
| Feb 7th, 2006 11:32 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I don't mean he lacked sincerity. But the tone of the scripture seems to imply that Jesus was sort of whatever about the whole thing. Like, "oh, this meaningless hunk of monetary value is important to Ceasar? Uh, ok, then give it to him." | |
| Feb 7th, 2006 11:30 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
You will BURN for implying that Jesus was being insincere. 
|
|
| Feb 7th, 2006 11:25 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|
| Feb 7th, 2006 10:21 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I agree with you for the most part, and I think you and I hold a very similar perspective on the government/faith relationship. However, while I agree with you (and perhaps St. Augustine?), I think you could pull out other pieces of the Bible to justify action. I don't think a Christian should alienate or hate sinners, for obvious reasons. But isn't it the duty of a Christian to call out a system that goes against the teachings of Christ? For example, Peter defied the Sanhedrin, and defied tradition and custom by reaching out to the Gentiles. I don't think this means Peter hated the authorities, or that by doing these works he intended to recreate Heaven on Earth. But it does tell me that the role of the Christian has been to teach and to challenge, not to be quiet and equivocal, IMO. |
|
| Feb 7th, 2006 10:00 AM | ||
| Sethomas |
I think the absence of any political guidelines speaks volumes on that subject, unless you keep in mind that Jesus was a socialist in a religious sense. As for imposing socialist government, I think the "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" statement you mentioned does give Christianity the liberty to adopt any godless government it requires. That statement was brought up in Scripture because of the transgressions of the Roman State upon the Jewish religion. You could argue that Jesus was only saying "sure Rome is evil, but at this point in time you'd get your ass wipped anyways." He did predict the Fall of the Temple, after all. I personally believe that Jesus had the prescience to be able to say "American leftism is WRONG!", but he didn't. He told tax collectors and whores to "sin no more", but he never told anyone to ostracize sinners. Plus, you may have heard of the conservative political philosopher Jean Beth Elshtain. I was in a class she taught on Augustine's De Civitate Dei, and she was quite clear on the matter that Augustine never intended the City of God to take place on Earth. So, if theocratical impositions of the state go against Augustine, then I'm all for secularism. Someone at the Phatmass forums keeps bringing up the fact that the Catechism states that the State must concede that it derives its power from God, but I feel that this simply means it's our responsibility to choose moral leaders. As a metaphysical body, the State can't really concede much of anything except through its legislation and social programs. The purpose of the State is to mutually benefit the human race, and it makes perfect sense for that to entail the unborn. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
