Wow, 150+ posts...you guys do just fine on your own. Good thing, too since I have been incredibly derelict in my duties.
I wish I had an excuse. Firstly, I was just getting a little burnt out by all of the bickering, but mostly I have been geeking out on "Doctor Who" and "Torchwood". Sorry, I wish I had a better reason for my absence, but there it is. I am a total Sci Fi nerd, and I make no apologies for that.
No news on the house, except that the seller's bank has assigned the file to someone, so I might be hearing something in the next few weeks...or not.
Here's a little something to get you going: Do you believe there are lifeforms that exist in the rest of the universe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
246 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 246 of 246And maybe,just maybe that's why we've crossed paths.I've stated I'm not here to be your "friend", but maybe I'm here to be the voice that you need to hear. And, maybe that's why you find me so unlikable...'cause you don't wanna hear what I have to say.
Life presents us with opportunities, I found, to grow and change spiritually--it's up to us to take them.
I think in the end, when we're forced to reconcile our lives and the choices we've made, there's gonna be a voice that says "but someone did tell you that what you were doing was wrong--it was your free will that directed your choices.
wv:fonsu. Now what do you suppose that means?
Gina, as I see it, there are two separate issues. The first issue is whether I always made good choices in high school. I would say that the answer is no, I didn't always make good choices; I would never deny that statement. As I've grown older, I can see things that did that I regret. I wasn't perfect then; I'm not perfect now. Nobody's perfect. Hopefully I've grown during the 30+ years I've been out of high school, and I think I am still open to growth today.
But by any reasonable measure, my own part in the actions of the lay teacher and my classmate is still nonexistent. My actions certainly don't constitute legal causation, they're too remote and speculative. There are simply too many intervening actions to warrant placing responsibility on me. Just because there's some connection between the butterfly's flap and the typhoon doesn't mean you can say that the butterfly made the typhoon happen.
And I don't really find you unlikeable. It's true that you sometimes express yourself in a way that has gotten under my skin. I've been trying harder lately not to let those things bother me, with varying degrees of success. And there were a few things you've said in this exchange that I found irritating, but the general gist of your comments seem benign, which is how I'm trying to take them. One point you made that is valid is that life presents us with opportunities to grow. It's been said that pride is the ultimate sin, and one aspect of pride is the belief that one has reached the pinnacle of growth, so I am trying to reject the sin of pride by remaining open to growth.
aha! The you will be renouncing your position on abortion, correct?
Krikey!
It just occured to me that we might have finally excorcised the Beast....
Wv: Grachos...Castilian for THANK THE CATHOLIC GOD!
Well, My middle name has always been "Miss Speel".
Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise. Exorcise.
wv:copiers
Yes, now he's stinking up LaSalle's blog again. He'll be back if there's an opportunity to be annoying.
He's such a effing puke.
Quaaf is the perfect description for him. How I ever managed to come up with it I'll never know...must have been an inspiration from God.
I'm glad you're back, Qua. I missed you.
No I won't.
Gina, "open to change" doesn't mean "think exactly what Gina wants me to think." As I see it, there is still a problem with banning abortion from the point of view of "life begins at conception" being a purely religious notion. But not banning abortion doesn't constitute an endorsement of it. There should be fewer abortions, no doubt.
wv: mentscri
gina is the messiah!
But, biologically, life does begin at conception--that is the definition of the word. You're just arguing from the base of a legal loophole, not truth.And, you should think how Gina wants you to think because it is the most correct form of thinking.
Just think of my style in terms of "Noblesse oblige."
Mr. Sense, no, I'm not the Messiah, I'm the Oracle. Don't confuse the two, please.
no one has the guts to leave the temple.
Huh?
WV:licur. So funny on so many levels.
There's moh at the doh.
I think someone has someone by the balls.
wv:prosa...that's Italian.
hee hee, Gina... I think I know to what you're referring. Nice one... ;-)
wv: castosos (how apt!)
heh.
wv:subless
Gina, we've had this argument before. And I personally prefer to base my thinking on arguments, not received wisdom.
wv: trank
Ya, and like all those messages that told you that you were illegally drinking alcohol supplied by your teacher you managed to find a logical explanation for too, right?
You know, I can't help but think that you probably took the slot of a more deserving character for law school. Maybe that's what's wrong with our legal system. It's no longer about serving truth and justice, it's all about winning.
Quit kidding yourself--you'll be a better man.
Just because I acknowledge that I'm not perfect doesn't mean I'm not worthy. As I said, I prefer to base my positions on reason and facts rather than received wisdom, and you've not given me any arguments in support of your position that don't derive from the unprovable notion that the human soul exists at conception. On the other hand, the position I have taken is uses many of the arguments that Justice O'Connor used when she wrote the Casey decision affirming the right to abortion. Are you saying that Justice O'Connor, too, shouldn't have been admitted to law school? If law schools refused to admit anyone who didn't meet your apparant standard, no one would be admitted. At this point, it seems that you are simply making personal attacks because you know that there is no getting past this particular impasse with your posision. No matter how you slice it, it still comes down to faith, and there's no other basis for it. O'Connor's opinion in Casey did a very good job detailing the different legal and societal interests in abortion, and carefully balanced those interests. Your approach, on the other hand, puts a thumb on the scale against abortion like a dishonest butcher.
So now the argument has shifted to the question of whether or not a human posesses a soul? Does that mean that you are admitting that human life does begin at conception?
And of course, we all know that Justice O'Connor has the final say on the matter that Ms. O'Connor's thoughts have now replaced all other thinking on the subject.
wv:culgelm
The idea that human life begins at conception is based on the notion that the human soul comes into existence at that point.
From a scientific point of view, the existence of a soul is an irrelevancy; certainly something starts at conception, and it has a basis in human life, but at that point it is not necessarily human life, given common scientific criteria for determining when life begins, e.g., the Wikipedia entry:
"Biology offers a number of stages in the life cycle that have been seen as candidates for personhood:
fertilization, the fusing of the gametes to form a zygote
implantation, the start of pregnancy, occurring about a week after fertilization
segmentation, after twinning is no longer possible.
neuromaturation, when the central nervous system is fetus is neurobiologically "mature" [3]
the time of fetal movement, or "quickening"
when the fetus is first capable of feeling pain
fetal viability, when the pregnancy can be ended with a live birth
birth."
And my point about O'Connor was simply that you haven't given me any reason or facts to change my mind, and that if you don't like my thinking, I've got plenty of good company. The rational approach requires that we supplant our old thinking with new thinking when the new thinking provides a better explanation or reasoning. Come up with a better argument, and we'll talk; keep rehashing the same old argument, and I'll keep shooting it down the same way.
And I understand why you think this way, Gina, it's part of Catholic dogma (again, a nice explanation from Wikipedia):
"The official views of the modern Roman Catholic Church on the dignity and humanity of embryos are found in the 2008 declaration Dignitas Personae, which gives a number of responses in moral theology and bioethics.
"It is important to note when discussing the Roman Catholic Church history of ensoulment within the abortion debate, that the Church teaches that ensoulment is at conception. This is taught as an article of dogma which is required belief by all its members. The Church draws a clear distinction between articles of dogma and articles of doctrine. The Church requires belief by its members of all dogma, which it considers infallible truth. Doctrine, including canon law, has differing levels of certitude, and may be open to some debate. The Roman Catholic Church has maintained as part of its dogma the writings of the early Church father, Tertullian (160–220 CE), who wrote: "Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does."(A Treatise on the Soul, chapter XXVII)."
And we all know what a credible source Wiki is...again your sources are doubtful, and you really should name two.
I agree that the matter of a soul is irrelevant. We aren't guaranteed the right for our soul to exist, only our life. And furthermore, I know plenty of people who very much seem like they have no soul--you included. So, my argument isn't based on Catholic theology at all. It's based on the fact that a human has yet to produce anything but another human, and it's safe assume because of that, that what is conceived is very much a human(although plenty of people sure do behave like animals)and until you prove otherwise, your argument is fallacious.
Mine is based on scientific fact...and what our government supposedly guarantees as a fundamental right.
You still haven't answered my question about your motive--do own stock in the bio-med industry?
Again with the personal attacks; what do you think it would take for you to give them up?
Try as you might, you're not going to find any motive for my view other than a desire for the truth and a preference for rationality. It's certainly not based on profit; I'm not particularly interested in getting rich. My desire is to lead a life that's balanced between industry and leisure, seriousness and frivolity, etc. I don't own any stocks directly; and I don't recall whether the mutual funds in my 401K have any biotech stocks, all I remember is that my investment decisions are a bit on the conservative side.
The concept that the fetus does not enjoy the full rights of personhood exists in Judaism, so it's not as if I came up with this notion OTB. Just because a human fetus will not become a duck doesn't necessarily mean that the fetus is a person with rights equal to the mother. It's clear that the courts have determined that the fetus does not obtain all of the rights of personhood until after a certain point it its development because to provide those rights too early would be to deny rights to the mother. Until that point, the mother should have the choice to decide what she wants. While you might not approve of her decision, you don't have the right to stop her.
So, essentially your logic is that although we are all supposed to have equal rights guaranteed by our constitution, in this one instance, just because a women can become pregnant by her own actions, she deserves to have more rights than everyone else? Even if those rights violate someone eles's.
Your logic is still flawed. Our government constantly dictates what we are allowed to do with our bodies, and it's punihable by jail or in some cases, death. According to your line of reasoning, we should be able to do what ever we want with our bodies...because they're ours. Like killing someone or driving drunk, or taking massive quantities of harmful drugs. Or robbing stores or so on and so forth.
Come on now, dsg, you don't really believe what you're saying?
It's not really a personal attack if it is factual--you do really seem to have no soul.
Gina, saying I have no soul, even if the existence of a soul is not provable, is a personal attack. Trying to act as if it isn't is a dishonest argument.
I answered your question about biotech stocks, yet I see no acknowledgement that your premises about me were incorrect. That's another example of dishonest argument.
Your critiques of my position are logically flawed because the examples you give of what the government prohibits us from doing are each distinguishable based on whether those actions impact other people. There is an old saying, "My rights end where your nose begins." From the perspective of the social compact, laws that bar us from harming others are much more justifiable than laws that simply bar us from harming ourselves.
Conceptually speaking, the law frequently distinguishes between acts that impact others and acts that do not. In the case of abortion, the issue still remains the same one we have been debating ad nauseam--if, as I have argued, the fetus does not constitute a person under the law until it reaches a certain stage of development, then a mother's decision to abort that fetus does not impact another person. (The case of criminal abortion against the will of the mother is a different situation, because the injured person is the mother, who is injured as a result of the harm done to the fetus that she intends to bear.)
As there is a meaningful biological difference between men and women in this instance, there is a valid factual and rational basis on which to treat women differently from men. Or, as some wags have noted, if men could get pregnant, the right to an abortion would have been explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution.
I think I've articulated a consistent, reasoned and justifiable position regarding abortion. You may disagree, but until you come up with better arguments, you're not going to change my mind.
But that is the whole basis for my argument and flawed, ad nauseum--her actions do harm another person. And under any other circumstance, except for a legal loophole and playing fast and loose with definitions, it would be murder. In fsact it is murder, someone does indeed get killed. And, if the reason for the homicide is just a matter of convenience for the person doing the killing, then it is not justifiable.
And I believe I said you "seem" to have no soul. One saying they
seem to think something is not stating something absolutely. I'm intitled to my opinion, just like you. And if you find that offensive, that's your problem, not mine. Maybe it makes you so uncomfortable because there is an element of truth to it. I mean, come on, you're willing to think it's perectly acceptable for a person to kill another just because they don't feel like taking responsibilty for their actions. That is merciless. Mercy implies having a soul in my book.
here dsg:
Main Entry: soul·less
Pronunciation: \ˈsōl-ləs\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
: having no soul or no greatness or warmth of mind or feeling
— soul·less·ly adverb
— soul·less·ness noun
Now look up merciless and cruelty and I think I make a very valid point.
Gina, I never said you weren't entitled to your own opinion, only that your arguments weren't convincing to me. You can think whatever you want to think, and you are free to try to convince others of the correctness of your views. But you are trying to discredit my views by the use of pejoratives, and you seem to be fixated on changing my mind, and you are employing dishonest and coercive arguments to try to move me.
Calling abortion murder is one of the most intellectually dishonest and vile tactics of the right-to-lifers, and it's the main reason why most reasonable people are not moved by their entreaties.
Uh-huh. You're attacks on me are just as bad, no matter how you candy-coat them.
If abortion is not murder, what is it then? I mean, murder is willfully killing a life without just cause and a life is killed unjustly and willfully when you perform most abortions. It ain't willed away, that's for sure. And it almost always involves blood.It's an act of violence, by definition, so quit trying to redefine reality. And, if other's are not convinced, so what? I'm only speaking out against an injustice against people that can't do it themselves. Noblesse oblige. Look it up...you might learn somethin'.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty...you think just because you can badger people that makes you right. That doesn't work on me.
By the way, were you ever a recipient of a scholarship?
Gina, I'm not badgering you, as I said, you're free to do and think as you please. All I'm doing is expressing my opinion about your views. Feel free to ignore and/or discount what I say; but let's not pretend that you're not trying to force me to think the way you do. Your own comments reveal that to be your goal, or did you forget that you said:
"aha! The you will be renouncing your position on abortion, correct?"
And when I say you're trying to force me to think the way you think, let me ask why it makes any difference at all whether I had any scholarships?
"It's been said that pride is the ultimate sin, and one aspect of pride is the belief that one has reached the pinnacle of growth, so I am trying to reject the sin of pride by remaining open to growth."
It was meant somewhat in jest in response to your own words. I've stated before that I believe it's your pride that keeps you from agreeing with me. You play the game to win, no matter what the cost.
In regards to the scholarship, it's a matter of curiosity. I suppose that you attended the Catholic school on scholarship?
wv: carbion...you figure it out.
And quit being evasive. I ask you again: if abortion isn't murder, what is it?
wv: redryout. Ha. That's a good one.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
And you have absolutely no remorse for having Catholics to thank for getting you to where you are.
Irony of all ironies.
P.s. Giving money back to your alma mater doesn't change anything.
In other words, you're saying that I must think the way you do or else I'm an ungrateful, soulless monster. Gotcha. Great powers of persuasion you got there.
Again, what you're saying is that because I went to a Catholic school, I must think the way you do or be condemned, regardless of the rationality of the arguments. I recall something similar being done to Galileo.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I find it ironic that you're only where you are and speaking against the most important principle of the Catholic Church--the sanctity of life--because of the mercy of the people you ridicule.
Not a gracious bone in your body, is there?
wv:bleacki
Gina, can we get one thing straight? I do not intend to ridicule Catholics. Of all of the variations of Christianity, it's the one that I think is most legitimate, and it's the one I feel the most affinity with. I also have a lot of respect for the efforts the Church makes to take a consistent position on the value of human life. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it in each instance. It also doesn't mean that I have to presume that all priests are well-intentioned. As I said, I haven't known that many priests, although I've known more monks and nuns. Most of them have been decent people. But not all.
I take offense to a beneficiary of the goodwill of the Church giving yet another example of things that were beyond Her control while excusing the same sort of behavior from anyone else...especially when the person doing the criticism acted questionably during the mentioned behavior.
What does it accomplish? Except to keep on making Her look bad. You do come across as an ingrate.
There is no litmus test that I know of for perverts. The Church has done far more to correct wrongdoing than Michael Jackson and his entourage ever did, and they deserve far more criticism and less sainthood status than the Catholic Church.
Gina, in your screed, you ignore a number of inconvenient facts as you attempt to demonize me. First, I actually never criticized the Church's actions. All I ever did was say that I don't presume that all priests have good intentions, and I gave you factual reasons why I didn't. Second, I neither excused nor canonized Michael Jackson or his "entourage." All I said was that I thought it was presumptious and dangerous to assert that he was a child molester in the face of his acquittal. If you have problems with people who criticize the Church for its action or lack thereof with regard to child molesters and then turn around and worship those who would commit or succor child molesters, feel free, but don't include me in that group, and don't bootstrap on that inclusion to call me names like ingrate.
BTW, Gina, your inflammatory rhetoric is not well thought out, but is apparently just contrarian. When I said you thought I was ungrateful, you said no, I was unethical. Yet in your last comment, you said I was an ingrate. Inconsistent much?
wv: tasese
A more convenient taser.
Well, let me revise it, please.
You are an unethical ingrate.
How's that, better?
More consistent, still devoid of truth.
Post a Comment