[Deepblue]

It's one thing to not agree with someone's religion, it's quite another to ridicule them for it.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

Originally posted by Bobboau
hows this we don't like religion becase it makes people feel moraly superior, even if they aren't.

While i can understand this sentiment, and can actually agree that this does in fact happen, it is not how things are meant to be.  it's our vanity that forces our beliefs on each other.  I know that i am not perfect, Physically, spiritually, or morally.  my beliefs tell me that i will never be.  That's fine, i don't have to be.  i think that what of the people that you would call "So called christians" miss is that while we strive to be perfect, it isn't a destination, it's a journey, one that by nature we can never complete.  We will never be perfect people, but we can strive to be as close to it as possible.  Part of that perfection is to simply judge not.  Kazan i will apologize now for this, it's an example and nothing more.....Kazan is an overbearing egomaniac.  That's judging.  if i am not mistaken i have also said as much in another thread.  You have my apologies.  We are peers and equals and as such we have no room to judge one another.  Whether or not you agree isn't an issue, i disagree with my own actions toward you in thread.  please leave it with that apology.  

what i should have done was to have said "Kazan while your points are valid, they are valid from your point of view, and not all of us have that point of view, or choose to live life in the same manner that you do.  While you dislike religeon (organized) because you feel that it attempts to infringe on your rights to live as you see fit, we feel the same way and will become just as defensive about our beliefs as you are about yours.  You are a highly intelligent and learned individual, but in some cases science is like money, it has value because we accept it.  Much like religeon.  We have not as yet found the common ancestor to the best of my knowledge, and until such a time, the battle between creation and evolution will rage, and will probably worsen when we do.  We each vehemently defend our position, and even more vehement will we defend that position when we feel it attacked.  I hope this explains a bit of how we feel as christians about that subject, i sincerely do.

we oppose theocracy (government+religion) becase theocracy oppresses science and more importantly freedom. we are Americans, freedom is our primary value. we beleive that you should have the right to live life the way you want so long as it doesn't signifigantly interfere with other people's ability to do the same.

while i agree that the bible is a great guide to moral living, i do not agree with the bible as a guiding force in government.  choices need to be made that while morally questionable, are in fact necessary, and therefore, i do not think that a political position should be allowed to enfore personal religeous beliefs.  i certainly don't think that this is right in country that i beleive was founded on religeous freedom.  Freedom to believe as we will, and not be persecuted by the beliefs of others.  So here, i have to agree, if for a different reason.

a person can make desisions based on there faith, without legilateing that faith, (unless there faith is "all people in the world must conform to my faith or perish" in wich case makeing desisions based on that faith would be quite tricky to make without legislateing it. is that your faith? I certanly don't think you think that at the very least.)

he just got back from evercrack rehab, what do you expect!?

ShadowWolf:
I forget the name of them, I know that there are a lot of letters writen, I've seen both sides of the argument use them selectively to further there own agendas, though if you read into them you will probly find that the founders were basicly a lot like us today, constantly fighting with each other.

i agree, they were probably just like us, each trying to do what they honestly believed to be the best course, and having a very hard time finding a middle ground.

[Bobboau]

"they were probably just like us, each trying to do what they honestly believed to be the best course, and having a very hard time finding a middle ground."

and that's why the laws were so ambiguously written, enough to allow continued argueing to this day.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

and it's the same arguement, the literalists vs the religous, both believing that they are defending a position, and arguing against each other instead of arguing toward the same point.  That point being "what is best for all concerned?"  At least that's how i see it.

[Kazan]

the best for all concerned is to keep religion out of government, and government out of religion - a high and inpregnible wall of seperation

the best for all concerned is to make all decisions be based upon facts derived from evidence

the best for all concerned is to make it so that we can stop arguing about this crap and make it so some of us are not daily defending our rights


you know why im such an ahole about this? i've been fighting this same war for eight years - this last election year finally ran my patience out

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I think that we should have the right to believe (or not to) as we choose, and that my particular faith should not be forced on you, anymore than yours should be forced on me.  and i think that on certain issues....such as abortion, our views oppose one another to such extremes that when one of us wins a legal battle, our belief is then forced on the other.  We need to find a middle ground on it instead of forcing it one way or the other.  We may both walk away grumbling, but that is a damned site better than charging one another shouting.

[Kamikaze]

When a conflict like that arises I think it's sensible to decide on the option that gives people more choice/freedom rather than try to find a middle that neither side likes. If abortion is illegalized then a belief is forced on people. If it is legal people have a right to not abort a baby.

Note that an embryo doesn't have the capacity for choice.

In the case of euthanasia the patient has a right to request it. A doctor has no right to end the life at their own discretion though, that limits choice.

Back to the subject, the discrimination law would limit freedom and so it shouldn't be passed. Imagine the extreme case of if all organizations were faith based and you were non-theistic (Testing the extremes of a case is an important programming principle... ).

[Kazan]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
I think that we should have the right to believe (or not to) as we choose,

that's exactly what bobboau and I, etc are pushing for

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
and that my particular faith should not be forced on you, anymore than yours should be forced on me.

exactly - that means no religious things in/on government documents/property

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
and i think that on certain issues....such as abortion, our views oppose one another to such extremes that when one of us wins a legal battle, our belief is then forced on the other.

here is where you're wrong - when the court decision says "you have a choice" that is not having anyone's position forced upon you - you can choose not to have an abortion



 

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
We need to find a middle ground on it instead of forcing it one way or the other.

There is no middle ground on this issue by your definition - there is either "right" in your opinion, which means limiting abortions (violation establishment clause, and right to privacy) - or "wrong"


 

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
We may both walk away grumbling, but that is a damned site better than charging one another shouting.

you wouldn't be grumbling at all if you realize that when the ability to CHOSE is upheld everyone wins

[ShadowWolf_IH]

see....to me...human life begins at conception.  i know it's very basist, but it's my personal belief, so when an abortion takes place, the child loses.  I think that regulating, not abolishing is the answer.

[Kazan]

that position relies on religion - so legislating based upon that is violating the establishment clause


period

[Bobboau]

I would not be opposed to limiting abortions in the late term in exchange for expanded protection of abotion in early term, though I must admit I don't honestly feel right makeing such judgements being both a man and not haveing anything close to a girlfrend.

and to prempt you Kaz, he represents a substantial percentage of the population, you must be willing to compromise. further, such abortions (thinking late 7-9th month) are relitively rare IIRC, so little is being lost, for protections in the more important stages. it seems to me that six months is enough time to make up your mind, and unless you'r going to tell me that there is some magical moment during delivery (the same way that Liberator asserts that there is some magical instant at conception) I do see some creedence to the assertion of some limitations (with the obvius exeptions for medical emergencies) on abortion in the latter terms. I am something of a gradualist on the subject, it doesn't make logical sence to me that the diference of one hour can change a non-liveing fetus into a fulling self-contained human entity with all the rights involved (even if the legal technicalities involved are clear, legalisms are bull**** when it comes to the real world). now I am fully aware of the wedge stratigy and the political reality of the situation, but if some individual is willing to compromise there position I think it is wise to be willing to consiter doing the same. at least for the purpose of debate.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

it's not based on my religeous beliefs.  it's based on spaghetti sauce.  the ingredients are sauce when they are combined  It's what i beleive.

[Kazan]

remember my definition of when it becomes an individual is the medical one

able to live outside the mothers body without the aid of medical technology


----

and no - we will not compromise on this -- just because they're a large part of the population (not as a large of part as they make themselves sound either) doesn't mean we should compromise on the solidity of the establishment clause

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Kazan
that position relies on religion

actualy, were in the Bible does it actualy define this, it is one of the things that has bothered me about there side of the debate for some time. IIRC, Jewish law states that first breath is the point of life, so were did these two religiosly based deffonitions end up roughly 9 months apart.

honnestly I think this whole argument has mor to do with pollitics than anything else (ie the afore mentioned 'wedge strategy')

[Kazan]

bobboau: don't bother pointing out their position is inconsistent with the bible - they never listen to that, they don't give a rats arse

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Kazan
able to live outside the mothers body without the aid of medical technology

so if it can be reasonably assumed that a fetus is capable of surviveing outside the mother, then you would be willing to say, no to an abortion.

[Kazan]

without the aid of modern medical technology - obviously


so long as the mothers health/life isn't in danger


[edit]
obviously this takes a physician to determine on a case-by-case basis

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
see....to me...human life begins at conception.  i know it's very basist, but it's my personal belief, so when an abortion takes place, the child loses.  I think that regulating, not abolishing is the answer.

This may sound cruel but even if this embryo were human it doesn't have the capacity to make choices. So its choice/freedom can't be considered by the government when making abortion laws.

A similar example is a mentally incapable patient with an incurable disease. They won't be able to make a choice because of their condition, so even if they wanted to die the doctor cannot let them.

Another situation is consentual sex with a mentally retarded person or a minor. They are incapable of making a rational choice about the situation so it is illegal to have sex with them.

In these situations there is no choice limited so they are acceptable (not necessarily fully satisfying, I don't like the idea of terminating embryos) in my view.

By the way, what do you mean by regulation rather than abolishment? Do you mean legalising it for special cases like non-consentual sex? (Semi-related: I like the idea of special cases for non-consentual sex because it allows abortion for underage teens along with rape victims)

[Bobboau]

so are you saying "you hold it for another three weeks missy" or "time for induced labor"

[Kazan]

kamikaze tread lightly on this statement "doesn't have the capacity to make choices. So its choice/freedom can't be considered by the government when making abortion laws. "

a baby cannot make the choice to be/not be circumcised - but circumcising it is still violating it's right to genital integrity