The people Obama is beginning to choose for his administration plus what he said at today's first press conference show he's on the ball.
|
The people Obama is beginning to choose for his administration plus what he said at today's first press conference show he's on the ball.
Please provide factual data to prove your point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
There are pictures of him NOT repeating the pledge of Allegiance,
There is proof that his political career started in the home of a terrorist. There is proof that he got a sweetheart deal on the purchase of his home from a known gangster, There is proof that he sat under the teachings of an inflamatory preacher who spouted hatred and biggotry. There is proof that he associates with the American mouthpiece for a terrorist organization. So please disprove my statements with facts!
There are Internet pictures of Bush grabbing at his pants during the Pledge. What was THAT all about?? Btw, McCain didn't wear a flag pin during the three presidential debates. There are NO pictures of Obama not saying the Pledge, because such a thing is impossible to prove by a photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
It has been disproved by independent sources, including the couple who sold their home to the Obamas, that there was no "sweetheart" deal. (ADDED: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/5)
How often did that minister spout hate and bigotry over the time the Obamas were members of the church? You know of only once. And of course, you are Rev. Wright's age and grew up black in the age before civil rights? (I'm white and grew up in the South during that time and even as a child was horrified at the goings on. There are still race incidents that defy the notion that we are all created equal and have equal rights. Here is one of many: James Byrd, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.)
Obama's political career began in a Chicago hotel (ADDED -- at the Ramada Inn, Lake Shore Drive in the Hyde Park neighborhood), not in Ayers' living room. That information is researchable and can be found in many locations.
Obama does not associate with "an American mouthpiece." In fact, that mouthpiece voted on Tuesday and told exit poll takers he wished he knew Obama better. (And please post a reference that the two associate.) (ADDED: Ayers, when interviewed after he voted on Tuesday -- "Pal around together? What does that mean? Share a milkshake with two straws? I think my relationship with Obama was probably like thousands of others in Chicago. And, like millions and millions of others, I wish I knew him better.")
But What About The Children!!?!?!
(deadpan)
The children are leaning toward getting a golden-doodle from a shelter.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
Quote:
The people Obama is beginning to choose for his administration plus what he said at today's first press conference show he's on the ball.
__________________
Imagine if Sarah Palin had made a SNAFU insult like Obama did with his Nancy Reagan off the cuff comment. She would be pilloried..
Quick... off the cuff without looking on the net... name all 23 nations in North America (no there aren't only 3)
YESS! Congrats to Borack Obama! I hope he can get us out of this great depression we are about to get into! I do believe that this day was one of the greatest days in history since I have been on this earth, it is a BIg deal considering the fact that it was ONLY 50 years ago that a black person couldn't even sit on the front of the bus and now we have one in office. He isn't even all the way black. But he made it and that I believe is a very big accomplishment for our african americans today. God bless Borack and I hope he can pull through for us! All we can do now is wait.
Me myself, I am very much against abortion it is wrong. But don't you think we should have a choice? What if a little 15 yr old girl gets raped and ends up pregnant. Now you know she don't want this baby, and who is to say that this baby don't want to be put into a foster home and then years later he finds his mom and finds out he is a rapist child.what if it was your 15 yr old child that this happened to would you want her to keep it?? And who is to say that what if abortion does get banned that we won't have more and more babies ending up in dumpsters each year. Getting rid of an embryo is way different then finding an air breathing living child in the dumpster in your back yard... wouldnt you agree?Quote:
Originally Posted by 450donn
I'm glad that he seems to want to address this issue right away.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Right now it is all talk - which he is very good at.
I remain skeptical but hope that in 6- 9 months we will be economically better.
I hope so, too. But it took us a while to get into this mess, so I think it may take time to get out. Overall, we have let our infrastructure and education fall behind that of other developed nations, so we don't have the competitive advantages we had a few decades ago. We have a lot of catching up to do. And that means rolling up our shirt sleeves.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
Kitten, you should really rethink the "what if" approach to deciding right and wrong. You need to be able to present your beliefs without so many hypothetical stories. True right and wrong has a backbone and can face your hypothetical situations with a mindset that isn't selfish, it's just right... or wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten420
Without hypothetical stories, I can state to a certainty my belief that "No person should have to forfeit their life to ease the discomfort of another person, especially not without their permission". Once you can state your beliefs that straightforwardly, throw some hypothetical thought at it THEN and I bet your answers are not so simple anymore.
The rape thing is a common fallback, and it doesn't hold up unless you believe one person should be made to forfeit their life to ease the life of another person... without their permission. Do you really think that, in those terms?
Getting rid of an embryo IS different from finding a baby in a dumpster. They're both wrong (in my worldview), but the first one let's us ignore how wrong it TRULY is because we don't see the person we're killing. Yeah, that's different.
The reality is that most people make adjustments in their values according to the specifics of a situation.
Here's one example:
The Cloudy Ethics of Utilitarianism | Wired Science from Wired.com
But regardless of what you think the "right" answer is, it's normal and healthy to take many factors into account when making decisions about right and wrong. People who never do this are ideologues and tend to be rigid and unmerciful. JB, You don't sound like that in most of your posts, so I suspect you make more adjustments than you may realize.
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
I do not think you have a little mind! But I do think he makes a point.
Most people (including me) use hypothetical situations to "prove" their point. The problem is that these situations are tailor-made to force someone to choose what you want or they look bad.
Movies like Saw do the hypothetical much better. Here, you have to choose intense pain right now, or die. YOU die. Not someone else. Or... wait. Some of those Saw situations WERE between one person dying or another. And again, you had to do something horrible to yourself FIRST to get the right to choose someone else's death.
My point is this, hypothetical always assume one fact I do not ascribe to - what's best for me = what's best.
Here's a hypothetical for you, one I KNOW many, many people would choose wrongly.
This stuff is impossible. We decide for ourselves as primary importance (else the Saw movies wouldn't be very interesting).Quote:
You're in a room with two buttons.
One button is marked "lose your eyes and go free".
The other button is marked "some stranger you don't know dies and you go free unharmed and with $10,000 for your trouble".
Which button do you push?
We forget that WE could be the "stranger" that has to die because someone else pushed a button.
My point exactly. This is the right thing to do when you are making choices that affect yourself. This freedom to adjust your thinking HAS to be short-checked when you're talking about doing something to others without their willing participation. You HAVE to change your thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
I do.
I agree, I probably do. Just not on this issue.Quote:
People who never do this are ideologues and tend to be rigid and unmerciful. JB, You don't sound like that in most of your posts, so I suspect you make more adjustments than you may realize.
It was the heart of mercy that has already let my family face this issue and choose properly, choose for the unborn to have life even though those of us here already could opt differently.
You intimate that telling someone to put others ahead of themselves is unmerciful in the case of abortion. I correct that thought that it is mercy to the unborn that needs the most attention.
No, I don't. Yes, he does make a point. And it's a point I hope everyone who so easily and unmercifully place their own comfort/convenience/mental stress/life options above the life of unborns takes to heart.Quote:
As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
I do not think you have a little mind! But I do think he makes a point.
I do not think that an early embryo with no brain or functioning nervous system is a person or a child or even a "baby." I do not accept the catholic teaching that God adds a soul at the moment of conception. Given that, I think it's acceptable to abort an early embryo. I do not consider it murder in any sense of that word.
A fertilized egg cells is not more alive than an unfertilized egg cell. Dividing a few times likewise makes it neither more alive nor more human. An unfertilized egg cell or sperm cell is already fully human and fully alive. What they are not are persons. Mashing them together doesn't give them personhood. They are cells.
As the embryo develops and forms a fetus (that has the outlines of all the organs) and the fetus becomes more babylike, abortion becomes less acceptable to me. I think this is the case for most Americans. As it happens, this is exactly what Roe v Wade says: that first trimesters abortions are legal, mid term abortions may be regulated, and late terms ones are banned except in extraordinary circumstances like the trolley car example I posted. Many women have died so that infants could live. Many infants have died so that the mother could live. Doctors would nearly always seek to save both. These are awful, awful situations and I don't see how there can be any right answer.
Either way, you are sacrificing one person to save another and violating your principle. JB, Are you saying that the baby is ALWAYS the more valuable person in such a situation? How would you justify such a position? (And of course these situations are extremely rare. The vast majority of abortions involve early embryos that are not babies.)
This is probably why we don't have funerals for miscarriages which are actually the body's way to abort. Yes, there will be personal and private mourning for the potential human person that will never be, but there is no public outcry or upset.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
The question remains: When does a fetus become human?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
YOU and other people may like to believe with the right and wrongs but don't you have to think about situations like these to think about the right or the wrong? Isn't it that every time you come up to solution to do something there are also consiquences that you have to think about. I know that in some cases abortion in not the right thing to do but I
Also believe that it should be the persons choice bc/ we don't know what kind of situation they are in. I personally rather hear about someone having an abortion then hear abut someone dropping their baby off in a dumpster and that is what I believe. Nobody has to agree with me I was just puttin my input in on the situation and maybe if someone read my input they would think about the other conquences that can occur when you make the decision.
No, sacrificing one person to save another should always be with intention and permission. When no permission is available (rare, but occurs), the most authoritative and connected person on site must choose. Harsh, and the choice should not be ridiculed afterward. It is what it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by asking
Even though I could posit most parents would say "save my child" if they were given the opportunity, that's no help when they can't actually answer and you have to choose. Still, the principle isn't broken simply because a real-life or hypothetical situation appears to make it so.
I don't have to justify it. I simply state the facts as I perceive them.Quote:
JB, Are you saying that the baby is ALWAYS the more valuable person in such a situation? How would you justify such a position? (And of course these situations are extremely rare. The vast majority of abortions involve early embryos that are not babies.)
My life is not more important than the baby's, so I have no right to end it out of hand. Minus one of those imminent, life-ending scenarios we like to paint (which you've already pointed out are truly rare), without that, abortion is a decision of saying the life of the unborn is completely irrelevant if it is unwanted.
I understand how people defend that mindset, 1,000,000 US abortions per year say it's doable. I just don't get it.
In most abortions, it is a case of lifestyle choice. I'm suggesting that as such, we should rethink it.
Is the baby ALWAYS more important? How about we settle on equality? How about it's JUST AS important as mine? If we accept that (and most pro-choice don't), if we accept that premise, then how do we justify ending their life if they have every right to their existence?
Remember, at its core, we're comparing pain and discomfort and stress and unhappiness of one person to the death of another.
Which button would you push?
And respectfully, I suggest they are the same thing. In a world where I'm not more important than others, it doesn't matter how they end up in the dumpster (mother's hand or a doctor's), it's the same result. Someone is dead because someone else wanted it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by kitten420
Thus, for me, they are the same thing.
I think I disagree. If I were raped and got pregnant because of it and carried the child to term, every second of every day of every month for nine months I would relive that rape. I'm guessing it would not go well for me emotionally and spiritually, even as pragmatically German as I am. If raped and pregnant and if I chose to abort during the first trimester, I would feel guilt about the potential human I would cause to not exist, but that guilt would dissipate with the knowledge that God saw what had happened to me and knows my heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBeaucaire
But then, I've never been raped and gotten pregnant from it and have never had to make a decision about an unwanted pregnancy.
Too bad the rapist doesn't get pregnant instead and have to carry the child to term. That would cut down on rapes, methinks.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:16 PM. |