Kevin Graham wrote:Since the rationale is that a human life is being murdered during abortion, I think in order to avoid hypocrisy there should be no exceptions at all. As far as I can tell, the Catholics are the only ones who avoid this hypocrisy since they deem it a sin without exception.
The Church's rationale, and the rationale of most social conservatives, is that the unborn, and especially those in the first two trimesters, are being illegitimately killed. That all unborn babies are being murdered when aborted is the position of a minority of primarily Protestant fundamentalists, and does not represent the general conservative position, within which the Church is in the mainstream.
I snipped the rest of the argument because of its utter irrelevance to the LDS position on the issue.
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us
- President Ezra Taft Benson
I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.
You make me sad, BC. Really, really sad. Compromise is a socialistic victory? Wow.
I don' t think you understand the political or ideological history of the West, honorentheos, or the nature of the Left.
While for conservatives and others, politics is about the art of the possible within the realm of how people in a complex, civil society should live and be governed (political philosophy, in other words), for the Left, politics is war by other means, and for them, the goal is their own victory and the utter defeat, if possible, of their political enemies (ideology, in other words).
Hi Droopy,
I hope you can see the irony in your quote above. I'd like to think you are a mature-enough person to see the "our motives are pure, our enemy's are vile" thinking suggested above is unrealistic and best seen as a product of a paranoid imagination. American politics is not the ever on-going reenactment of the Munich Pact that you make it out to be.
But rather than argue with you, I do respect honest differences of opinion on political and social issues.
So I'm curious - what specific actions do you see the incoming republican house spearheading that will make things better?
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
The current structural budget deficit evolved out of Bush era increases in military spending, no child left behind, the prescription drug plan, and the tax cuts. While the Democrats certainly were spending like there was no tomorrow, it's still the legacy of Bush era polices driving the post Clinton problems with the budget.
Hint: Most of those Republicans claiming to be fiscal conservatives really aren't. Shhhhh.
Droopy wrote: and does not represent the general conservative position, within which the Church is in the mainstream.
Right. The question is whether that distinction is actually legitimate. It is questionable that aborting a fetus that wasn't a product of a rape is murder, but aborting one that is is not. If you were the product of a rape, would you be fair game to be shot dead when you are 22? I did my best to explain a minimally coherent way of making this distinction, but in truth I think pro-life mainstream is just taking a middle-ground position as a mental compromise that isn't born of internal consistency.
Molok wrote:oh help me Jesus, I'm starting to see shades of grey, even from your own blessed church!
A new mental disease needs to be added to the DSM manual. Call it Doltitis. A major symptom of Doltitus is the inability to think critically at even the most rudimentary levels.
Obvious logical relationships and conceptual similarities or dissimilarities do not even occur to those suffering from Doltitus. Hence, the difference between medically/psychologically legitimate abortion, and convenience abortion, would not occur to those suffering from Doltitus.
There is not, at present, any cure.
I believe I gave bcspace's ridiculous assertion about black and white thinking more seriousness than it ever deserved. Am I to believe that you would agree with Bcspace's idiocy? Come on Droopy, I know you aren't that simple.
This entire post is quite humorous, because in your rush to label me as a person who can't think critically, you completely miss my entire point, namely, to demonstrate that even bcspace's own church doesn't think in pure black and white terms. Doltitus indeed.
EAllusion wrote:Hint: Most of those Republicans claiming to be fiscal conservatives really aren't. Shhhhh.
That's because no politician can be elected if he dares cut any of the big expenses: defense, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and other welfare.
I hate taxes, but I have be a realist. It is not feasible to cut those programs given the current political climate. I personally would rather have the government raise the age for social security benefits for my generation, but that seems unlikely to pass.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Hint: Most of those Republicans claiming to be fiscal conservatives really aren't. Shhhhh.
That's because no politician can be elected if he dares cut any of the big expenses: defense, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and other welfare.
We shall see. The infusion of Tea Party candidates is supposed to counteract that but they certainly could be assimilated as well.
bcspace wrote:We shall see. The infusion of Tea Party candidates is supposed to counteract that but they certainly could be assimilated as well.
I don't think they have the power to counteract those things in the first place--not with without one of them in the white house. Even then, assuming they aren't assimilated, they'd be voted out of office and their legislation overturned at the first opportunity. People don't like it when they can't afford their medication (or have to sell their homes to pay for it), don't get the social security checks they were promised, and lose out on unemployment help during a weak economy.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
We shall see. The infusion of Tea Party candidates is supposed to counteract that but they certainly could be assimilated as well.
I don't think they have the power to counteract those things in the first place--not with without one of them in the white house.
I agree. It's unlikely.
Even then, assuming they aren't assimilated, they'd be voted out of office and their legislation overturned at the first opportunity.
If they keep communicating to the public that the stances they elected them on can't be achieved until there is a Republican for President, they will survive this round. When there is a Republican for President and a Republian majority in Congress and they can't acheive the promised legislation, then they might be voted out but I think most of that will be in primaries. I think the fact that Republicans will control redistricting for the next decade will protect most of them.
People don't like it when they can't afford their medication (or have to sell their homes to pay for it),
Obamacare has exacerbated that. One can effectively run against it until repealed.
don't get the social security checks they were promised, and lose out on unemployment help during a weak economy.
Easily and truthfully pinned on Democrats. But Republicans typically aren't good at it. They work too independently of each other and they don't have a giant subverted PR machine like the Dems have.