Members syncretism Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 Like I said, fetus in the original means child. Not in Greek {as you attest}, AFAIK, but I'll concede that using words in archaic senses is your prerogative as a debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xpander Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 Not in Greek {as you attest}, AFAIK, but I'll concede that using words in archaic senses is your prerogative as a debater. latin, he means. greek fetus is basically embryo: ?????? greek feta: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members T71 Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 greek feta: Mmm, Greek feta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members syncretism Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 if the bible was fake, what basis would you have for deciding the gay lifestyle was wrong? You needn't predicate the question on the Bible being fake. Plato presented a similar question in his Euthyphro dialogue: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xpander Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 You needn't predicate the question on the Bible being fake. Plato presented a similar question in his Euthyphro dialogue:"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious? Or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? damn it, you're right... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members syncretism Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 Perhaps our pious friends here are Thomists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xpander Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 Perhaps our pious friends here are Thomists. the small dog in this picture is heathen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kooki_sf Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 anyway. back on (off)topic... Palin replied: "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I hope someone has told her.. edit: this might be a good thing really, it would be nice not to have another cheney.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 It doesn't oppose, and it doesn't support it either. The Bible not only allows you to keep slaves, but allows you to pass them onto your children. So yes, slavery is scripturally sound. Do you find this morally objectionable? It did regulate it in the old testament because it was a fact of life, it was a given that it did exist. So the Bible "regulates" it because it was a "fact of life". Young people having sex and accidentally coming up pregnant is also a fact of life, what's wrong with making sure plenty of education and contraception is available to reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus abortions? I'm not even going there. Even Biden said in his speech that sometimes war is needed - when it means defending your country from an aggressor. Do you disagree with that concept? So, when Christ said "turn the other cheek", and God said "Thou shall not kill" they didn't really mean it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xpander Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 The Bible not only allows you to keep slaves, but allows you to pass them onto your children. So yes, slavery is scripturally sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super 8 Posted August 29, 2008 Members Share Posted August 29, 2008 though, and I believe that when morality goes against the word of God, it does have to change indeed. Your theology is not consistent. Once again, morality does change over time to serve the needs of the people. Scripture -taken wholly- is a poor example of morality. You and I have both shown why this is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Swami Digital Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 It did regulate it in the old testament because it was a fact of life, it was a given that it did exist. I'm not a fan of abortion, but this is EXACTLY the argument in the article by the doctor regarding Roe v. Wade. It's a fact of life, and it's regulated. Just as you describe the attitude towards slavery in the Bible. -D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tuba Four Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 Thanks for explaining your POV as well - always a pleasure to exchange ideas with you. dB The pleasure's mine db!!aL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Tuba Four Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 But it's because there are exceptions and gray areas that there needs to be choice in the matter to handle them. You can't start writing up laws that say this and this is ok but that and that aren't. Especially when it's put forth as a strict moral issue as the foundation for the argument. I don't have a problem with the exceptions. I have a problem with the use of abortion as a morning after pill so to speak!!! That's just wrong. And if it is wrong, I can't just wink at it. I am not sure what you mean about laws that say this or that is OK but not the other... But, laws make exceptions all the time. So, I am not following the logic that since there are exceptions to banning all abortions, that all abortions therefore must be legalized!! I would argue a simple non-moral argument in fact. Since we are not sure (and no one has claimed unequivocally) that life does not begin at conception, then we should play it safe and protect that life lest we should be found to have committed murder. aL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 And if Obama gets elected, we have a President with only 4 total years "experience" as a Senator, 3 of those years he used to run for the Presidency. Prior to that he was in Illinois senate for 7 years.At least being a Mayor and then a Govenor gives one executive experience much more similar to the Presidency than being a congressman. Of course, I think that both obama and mccain are horrible candidates, BUT - I think that this whole experience issue is nonsense. I'd rather have a smart, stable person, with views that I agree with, surrounded by other smart people than a whole truckload of experience. For the most part, given how the American political system filters out anyone without corporate suck-ass, militaristic views, by the time that they could become 'serious' candidates for the presidency, by definition, I'd prefer someone with much less experience. I mean, what is Obama going to do if he gets elected - start gnawing on Putin's ear because he just doesn't know what to do? Experience is another one of these media created issues that substitutes for real concerns, and diverts people's attention. The presidential race as a sports competition.... What's her face is a horrible candidate because of her views...the rest of it is just spin/demographics/public relations, and isn't important except for the media show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 Suddenly Obama is the safer choice by leaps and bounds. McCain gave Obama and Biden a great gift today that already is showing up in the polls and conversation. Generally candidates get a boost right after their convention. I really don't think that McCain's choice is very important at this point, but might be depending on how the press plays it, and the effectiveness of negative ads. In one calculated political move, McCain threw the experience argument and Celebrity card out with the bath water with pick of a former beauty queen. The experience 'issue' isn't an argument - it's simply a scare tactic, and the candidates themselves don't take it seriously, which this shows. The difference in judgment is nothing short of stunning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 STUPID? Given that our invasion was a massive war crime, certainly being against escalation isn't stupid, unless one views victory as the only issue. Unfortunately BO is playing the whole thing for political reasons. BTW, there is lots of opinion available about how the decrease in violence is not due to the surge. Regardless of whether it is or isn't, escalating a terrorist war against civilians is NEVER the right thing to do, and is NOT in the best interest of this country, and neither will be BO's Afghanistan escalation. Whatever his faults, he should get credit and respect for doing that. Can anybody see BO doing this? Get real. And does anybody think that BO will manage to take credit for a (hopefully) successful outcome in Iraq? Undoubtedly he'll try, but people aren't that stupid and they won't fall for it. Oh yes- Im afraid BO will lose the family values vote, lovely wife and children notwithstanding. A half-brother living in poverty on another continent is family, too. Ironically, George Bush, with his track record of aid to Africa, may have done more for BO's brother than BO himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 Say what you want about McCain, but the guy's got balls. You gotta be pretty confident in yourself to make a move like this.About a month or two ago, I was thinking about skipping this election. Now McCain's been consistently making choices I believe are good for this country.Imagine if McCain gets the presidency and unleashes her to go after areas of government where influential people (regardless of party) have been getting away with dishonest gains. If she gets to do what she did in Alaska on a national scale, I like the idea. LOL. I'll stay out of this one. We'll get into the same discussion about Christianity vs bombing the {censored} out of people again, and I'll get banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 not too long ago you were against a womans right to choose if i remember correctly. I believe also against gay marriage? I'd have to search too hard, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 You mean a woman's right to kill? Yeah I'm against that.That's not a gender issue by any means. Well, that's how you frame the issue. But you're for the war in Iraq, so, apparently you're quite selective in the way that you frame issues about killing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members The Severalist Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 I'd like to thank McCain for handing us the election," A bridge to nowhere"...the new GOP campaign slogan. A cynical follow the leader decision,this is a desperate ploy to get Hillary swing voters..it will fail for the most part. You're probably right. They're trying to have their cake and eat it too. A woman to get to the dissaffected Hillary voters, (some of whom are still grumbling under their breath about voting for McCain out of spite) and a Chrsitian evangelical to get to get the... very reasonable people. Nuts and gum, together at last. Ought to be a real hit, a rock and roll hamburger blowing up in their face. If it does work though, and McCain wins, I'll be so upset I'll vote for McCain, you know, just to be a dick.While Obamas choice seems like a genuine attempt to strengthen a potential presidency, this really seems more like a clear cut ploy to get elected. No wonder that she's semi hot either, so much of the women the republicans seem to parade out for the cameras are mostly docile, cheer leading bimbos. It's just to bad she's not constantly in an American flag bikini or doing ping pong ball tricks, though I did hear there's a photo out there of McCain and Bush eating sushi off her naked body while she half weeps half sings "America the Beautiful." You know, the more I think about how the republican machine get's down, the more I wonder why I'm not a republican. Posing by tanks, parachuting onto air craft carriers blasting m-16's to a bastardized version of "Born in the USA" neutered of it's meaning, kick ass catch phrases right out of death wish three substituting for foriegn policy, chillin with Jesus, nuclear reactors in every town, barfing on homos, doing awkward Mexican hat dances to woo hispanics, fixing elections, slanging coke in South America, shooting first and asking questions never, it's pretty bad ass when you think about it. I mean, they're pretty {censored}ing awesome. They're like NWA. All that's missing is McCain riding up to the podium in a debate with Obama on a harley put to a reworked version of Steve Martins "You'll be a dentist!" substituting "the president" for dentist. "To hell Osama! I'll follow you to the gates of hell!!!" Holy crap I'd say, the guy must eat live grizzly bear for breakfast and wash it down with lead paint, and still he doesn't look a day over one hundred and ninety. If only they'd put darth vader on the ticket, or maybe pit suspected terrorists against each other in some kind of televised battle royale, or put Ralph Nader in a dunk tank in a nightmarish dixie land charity event for some CEO who had to sell one of his twelve yachts last year just to make ends meet, that could cinch it. It'd be pretty tempting compared to the image of some wiccan lesbian democratic canidate wiping sludge off some dumb ass endangered pelican in Tibet with Susan Surandon, talking about let's resolve our issuses by talking about our feelings over a transexual cup of organic tea. Actually, that's kind of awesome too. Deciscions, deciscions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 Irrelevant. If 100% of doctors defended that we need to kill a certain ethnic group or someone with a deficiency, that still wouldn't mean it's right to do so.Murder is not something to be decided on a vote. You do have a knack for circular arguments. It's kind of cute. Obviously, those who support a woman's right to choose, don't believe that it's murder. And, if I were female, I'd sure as hell resent some Christian fundamentalist telling me how it all should work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members xpander Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 Holy crap I'd say, the guy must eat live grizzly bear for breakfast and wash it down with lead paint, and still he doesn't look a day over one hundred and ninety. EPIC POST!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members droolmaster0 Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 It's not your body. It's the baby's. You're just trying to get rid of someone you don't want in your life by killing them. That's really a cheap shot. I'd say that most people who believe that abortion should be legal are quite sincere, and are moral people. Whatever you think about the issue, they are certainly not committing murder in the generally accepted sense, like we are in Iraq, which you support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Andy's Eyebrow Posted August 30, 2008 Members Share Posted August 30, 2008 But isn't that what we have today? Isn't it that simple and easy? A girl/woman gets pregnant? It interferes with her life plans... and a medical procedure later she's gotten rid of the problem? I understand you may not be arguing for it, but that's the status quo!I don't have a problem with the exceptions. I have a problem with the use of abortion as a morning after pill so to speak!!! That's just wrong. And if it is wrong, I can't just wink at it. I am not sure what you mean about laws that say this or that is OK but not the other... But, laws make exceptions all the time. So, I am not following the logic that since there are exceptions to banning all abortions, that all abortions therefore must be legalized!!I would argue a simple non-moral argument in fact. Since we are not sure (and no one has claimed unequivocally) that life does not begin at conception, then we should play it safe and protect that life lest we should be found to have committed murder.aL Abortions is awful and yes there are those who use it as a get out of jail for free card. But what do you do about that as policy and law? Where do you draw the line of murder vs. medical necessity. When does a fertilized egg become human... conception, two weeks, four, eight? What do you do to those who break those laws... both father and mother? Show me a politician that has ever proposed hard policy and laws that are anti-abortion. They never can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.