I hope the COLTS kick butt

[shuffles feet]

Yeah...happy now.

*shrugs* If it wasn't this opinion, I'm sure it would be some other opinion of mine that you'd object to. Either way, I doubt I'd be on your "good person" list for very long.

Why did you bother sharing this opinion with me?


I answered your question.

If I had to choose the manner of my own death, there would be other ways I'd pick before being ripped to shreds and there would be ways I'd pick after being ripped to shreds. What about you? Would this be last on your list?


I don't believe that it's truth so there's nothing for me to admit. You obviously do. You've admitted it.


Yes, we do all ready know this.

I don't think it can be defended TO YOU (et al). You've made it pretty clear that you don't think there is any defense.

I don't need to have it defended because I've all ready made up my mind.

Maybe someone else will feel like defending it to you -- I don't because I don't want to change your mind.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

I do wish this sort of thing would be discussed/researched/suggested.

My feelings with this have more to do with finding a solution everyone can live with and ending the societal division over this and not with any squeamishness I have about the current conditions.

It just seems that this sort of thing would be a way to turn the situations around into win/wins. The pregnant woman doesn't have to complete her pregnancy and some infertile couple gains a much wanted child.

You "all" have asked me a lot of questions. Would any of you be interested in focusing energy on asking questions about this type of solution? Would that sort of thing be 'acceptable' to your morality or is there something particularly compelling about which womb starts the pregnancy and which womb ends it?

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Well that IS the point isn't it. YOU can choose. A baby being aborted can't.

The question asked to me (which I answered) was:


Which I boiled down to: Would you make the choice to have your own body ripped apart.

I wasn't making a point. You'd have to ask Melody Lane if that was her point in asking the quesiton -- though I assume if it was I answered the wrong question.

If your point is that the cells/embryo/fetus being aborted has no choice in the matter, then you are correct. It doesn't. It never did.

It doesn't seem practical to try to give it a choice since I'm not sure how to make it understand the issue much less figure out how to interpret it's response. It's kind of a silly notion, really.

Mys

It works for me...that's why I mentioned it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

I'm all for finding a solution everyone can live with. A solution in which someone dies without a vote can not fit that criteria.

Incidentally...maybe I should copyright that plan before someone else claims it.

Oh, I think I would "choose" to not be killed, but that is just silly ole ME. The issue isn't choosing your own death,though, it is enforcing a horrible, cruel, inhumane death on someone against their will. They have no choice.


Well, you can't refute it, so my statement stands. If it is true, it is true whether you believe it or not. Reality exists independent of your "beliefs."

Not really. I bet its not "silly" to the one whose life is up for grabs. Seems pretty practical to me if it is my life on the line. It is a human being who can develop into a thinking individual who can grow to a point where he can make a "choice." Even young children can understand the concept of dead. Since it is his life that is up for grabs, logically, he should be the one to make that "choice." And we all love "choices," right?

The choice was never offered to the aborted.

The choice is offered to the woman who is pregnant to decide whether or not she wants to continue the pregnancy. The choice is also offered to our society to decide whether to continue to allow women the choice to terminate pregnancies. As far as I know, there's never been any discussion regarding finding some way to offer the choice to the cells/embryo/fetus being aborted.

My choice would be to continue to allow women to terminate their pregnancies. My desire would be to investigate ways to bridge the societal divide and find some way to make both parties happy -- potentially by 'ending' the pregnancy in a woman and 'transplanting' it into another woman who does desire to be pregnant. It seems like that might be a technologically feasible, morally acceptable, alternative -- at least to talk about.

I hope that clears some things up for you.


What did it get you? You assert your statement "stands" -- whatever that means. You'll stand there a long time waiting for me to worry about refuting it because I really don't care to change your mind or argue you out of your assertions or beliefs. Your "standing" doesn't bother me at all because I never "stood" on the ground you're occupying.

All that amounts to the same thing we started with, Melody Lane. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Your claims of "truth" do not impact my beliefs -- my claims of "truth" do not impact yours.

We're never going to agree. (unless it's to agree on that)

Anyway, I hope you feel better about being able to stand where you're standing. At least then you'll be getting something positive out of it.

Mys

No offense, but if you think that a 17 year old single pregnant girl is capable of being "personalably responsible" for a child, you ******edit******

There's "how it should be" and there's "how it is." How it should be: If you get pregnant, you are capable of raising a child in a loving caring environment. How it is: Lots of women who are pregnant are incapable of raising a child in such an environment. That leaves three choices: 1, The mother aborts the child. 2, The child grows up in non-nurturing environment. 3, Someone else raises the child. Have you raised an unwanted baby?

Think about the results. No abortions. OK, the child is raised by a 17 year old who has no earning capacity. That's a good start. There is this dream world that says only people who are capable of raising a child get pregnant. But in the real world if you want there to be no abortions, someone has to raise the kids who would otherwise be aborted. Have you adopted an ethnic crack baby recently? Have you stood outside the abortion clinic recently with a sign that says: "Don't abort, I'll raise that cute cuddly baby?"

If not, *****EDIT*****

Either put skin in the game or pipe down. Pro-life judgementalism is tired. Help the problem or sit on the sidelines. The first problem is birthed children who are not given a loving environement, rather than what happens fetuses sitting in the womb of 17 year olds.

(For the record, I have an infertile wife, am a big brother to a very disadvantaged child, am considering adopting, and am 100% pro-choice because we are not yet to the point where 95% of children who are born have a loving caring household. Have you been a big sister? If not, it's not too late. Rather than replying to this post,****EDIT****to http://www.bbbs.org/ and do some good ******edit******** I'm doing something, are you? *********EDIT**********

I know five people off the top of my head who adopted.

The process took almost a decade.

The cost to adopt a crack addicted ethnic baby from her pregnant via prostitution mother [and only an open adoption btw] was only slightly less than the cost of their home, not counting the hospital costs [which were plentifull due to crack addiction and withdrawl].

Plenty of good homes are waiting ready and willing...it is an insurmountable hill for many families who would if they could due to process and cost. Many infertile couples have nearly exhausted their expendable cashflow to be not infertile.

In case you haven't noticed..we don't have a plethora of orphanages full of needy children...it is extremely difficult to adopt a child that no one wanted.

Have you adopted an ethnic crack baby recently?

[b]not recently
it's been about 17 years
but, yes
adopted 2 children of an addict....

someone report my post so I get an edit from Justuss

[color:"red"]****edit******[/color] ... no offense

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Mebe, it is my personal policy to never discuss the well being of a child with someone who has just advocated its death because their "concern" is so transparently FAKE. You don't deserve a direct response and don't deserve to be taken seriously. Please don't embarrass yourself with that argument. It only makes you look flagrantly hypocritical and I say this sincerely as a person who used to make this SAME silly argument in defense of abortion. It doesn't work.

You simply can't claim to "care" that a child is loved, and then advocate his unjust death out of the other side of your mouth. That is just not rational and it won't work on thinking people.

Another suggestion: don't condemn others as being "judgmental" in the same post where you yourself are extremely judgmental.

I am glad that you are not bothered, mys. And that is the "truth." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, I come at this from two different fronts. One as a father that had to plead with a woman that told me she was going to kill my child before he was born... and I had no say in the matter. Then after he was born I was denied access... just because she could do that.... that what happens when you afford ONE person rule over the entire situation.

I also come at this fromt he standpoint of someone doing foster/foster adopt.... yet I find your silly arguments childish at best. To think that the infants would not be adopted in a split second is beyond ridiculous. But the host says... I could never give it up for adoption once I carried it! No, but you can slaughter it!

So, from someone that has stood up and made the committment to take in a child that needed a home... you sound like an *** and YOU should ****. Pro-choice justifications are the tired game in town.

Why should I choose between abandoned children and executed ones anyway?

They are both important and relevent issues.

Not either or, first and second.

Thankfully... we don't need more ignorance roaming the street and given your views, I can only imagine the moral standards you would pass on to your child.

Okay, Myschae, let me grant you the benefit of the doubt. Though I find it surprising that you claim “ignorance” of what was meant by the term “sovereign” in the context of “who is the supreme authority and decision maker” and who is the “servant, obligated to defer to the sovereign authority.” I will try to clarify that term so that you can agree or disagree with the term in the context in which it is applied (i.e., “supreme god”).

Here are the Primary definitions of Sovereign, and we can see which ones are applicable to the concept of “sovereign god,” depending upon who someone may believe is “sovereign” in their own life; their own self, a rock, God, Mother Earth, Gaia, Brahma, etc.

sovereign

IN BRIEF: Supreme. Also: Not controlled by others.


Sovereign may refer to:
· Sovereignty, a philosophical concept or state.
· Sovereign Faith a theological perspective.
o Self-ownership, a concept also referred to as the [color:" red"] sovereignty of the individual [/color]
· Monarch or other head of state


Law Dictionary
Sovereign
That which is preeminent among all others. 1 Bl. Comm. *241. [color:"red"] For instance, in a monarchy (as in God), the king as sovereign has absolute power[/color], while in a democracy, the people have the sovereign power. Blackstone, the eighteenth century legal theorist, defined sovereign power to mean "the making of laws." 1 Bl. Comm. *49. In ancient England, the king's word was law, in today's democratic governments, the law-making function has been taken over by representative bodies such as Congress. Other incidents of sovereignty in addition to law-making power are sovereign immunity, which prohibits lawsuits against the sovereign without its permission, and eminent domain, which allows the sovereign to take private property and put it to public use.

Myschae, when you say “I'm an atheist,” you are using a term that is understood and are applying that definition to yourself, embracing that definition as being “you.” That is NOT my telling you who you are, that is you announcing to all of us who you are. The term “atheist” carries with it an understanding that theologically there is no “supreme being,” no “outside of self” authority who has any “sovereign” rights over you.

In the context of our discussion about “gods” it is FAIR to say that if someone denies any “god,” they retain the “sovereign rights” normally associated with a “sovereign (god)” for themselves. They become the “authority” with the “sovereign right” to believe whatever they want to believe and to determine what is truth for themselves, regardless of anyone else’s belief, opinion, or facts that might be in “conflict” or “opposition” to what they choose for themselves.

You agreed with that when you said; “Aside from the absolute fact and truth that they believe it to be true. I understand that's different from 'proving' that it is objectively true -- but it IS a true statement to say: I believe evolution is true. Or I believe the rock is god. If that's how the person really feels.”

Your answer begs the question however. The issue is not, and never has been, “true = a sincere belief that someone might hold.” We are not talking a semantic definition of the word “true” here. We are talking about TRUTH that exists regardless of anyone’s closely held “truism” for themselves.

When you say; “Yes, and the sincerity of your beliefs about what athiests "think" or believe does not make them true for me. Maybe you're speaking of what some other atheist has told you,” you are either being insincere or you have some definition of “atheist” that is not the generally accepted definition of what an atheist believes relative to there being or not being any “sovereign supreme being.”

No one, least of all me, is going to argue that you might hold some opinion for yourself and have chosen to make it “your truth.” No one is going to argue that you can’t have 20 people in the same room who all hold differing opinions about something and who also believe that their opinion is true, at least for themselves.

But that does NOT confer “TRUTH” to the opinion. As you agreed, “objective truth” operates independently from “opinion truth.” But you take your opinion to be the “final word,” at least for yourself, and make it the “sovereign word,” the “authoritative word,” and try to deflect examining that very opinion in an attempt to determine what might actually be the “objective truth” by wanting to shift discussion to some “common ground of agreement area.”



Yes, but “intellectual honesty” would seem to require that when faced with “opposing” ideas about the same subject that a search for truth should be undertaken, or proof offered in support of one’s opinion if they are convinced from prior study that their opinion is the truth (of all the possible postulated “truths”). It would seem to be “intellectually dishonest” to merely “bury one’s head in the sand” and say “my opinion is my truth and that’s ‘good enough for me’.”

So let’s look at one example of this “head burying” concept, based on what you wrote to Noodle, as a good place to begin considering the implication of your stated position about what is “a true statement” and therefore “true for you.”


Okay, I am willing to imagine that you might be willing to change your mind.

Let’s use an example of this thinking that has already been proven wrong and that the disagreement with the idea WAS proven effective AND imposed upon those who considered the matter closed and not open to discussion. In addition, that disagreement and imposition of one “true thought” upon the other “true thought” (using your previously described concept of “it’s true for me, therefore it’s a true thought) not only “worked,” but it was very EFFECTIVE.

People once thought slavery was okay. Slaves were NOT people, they were merely “assets,” to be used and/or disposed of anytime the “Master” (read “sovereign”) so desired for whatever reason the “Master” wanted to use. It was the “Master’s” sole right, and it did not matter that anyone else might think that HIS slave was a person and not a “thing,” a “piece of property” that had no more inherent rights than any other “piece of property” that the “Master” might own. The slaves had NO rights, and no practical ability to “speak for themselves.” It took others to IMPOSE their will upon the “Masters,” to “violate the rights of the individual “Masters” and their “true belief,” to establish the objective truth that we are all created in God’s image and are all created equal. Two hundred years from now, it is hypothetically conceivable that slavery could again become the “norm” for the majority of Americans. But that would not change the TRUTH or alleviate the “opposing” from the necessity to disagree, to stand for the TRUTH, to provide proof (even if the “majority” wants to dismiss it), and even to forcibly stand up and say “you are all wrong to accept such a wretched state of affairs,” especially since it would be for the benefit of one group at the tremendous cost to another group.

COULD they have tried to deflect an examination of the real issue by trying to focus talk on some “area where they could find some sort of common ground?” Yes they could and yes they tried to do exactly that. Some States were “free” and some States were “slave.” And they just tried to “get along” with each other until some “radicals” had the temerity to say “NO! you are wrong, you cannot ignore the issue or pretend that ‘I’m okay, you’re okay,’ when others are PAYING THE PRICE so you can play “nice-nice with each other and your individual ideas that you consider to be ‘true’ for you.”


“When it comes down to it, each person has to decide what side of the issue they're on (or take no side which often means taking the default position which currently is pro-choice because that's how the existing laws lean). It's much harder on the side pushing for change than the default position because of this. “

It may be harder. Certainly “pro-life” positions and the people who hold them ARE most often ridiculed and demeaned for having such a position against the “Politically Correct” position of “abortion on demand by a woman.” But the child held in “slavery” to the mother, who does not have the ability to speak for itself, needs to have others “speak for it.” It (abortion) is wrong.



Myschae, this is NOT just some academic argument or semantic game that is played. This is an issue of how people, in this case the smallest and most vulnerable of all, are actually treated, as “property” or as people. Yes, it IS a polarizing issue, just like the issue of Slavery was a polarizing issue. There are LIVES at stake.
That YOU don’t feel immoral for your beliefs is understandable to me because you are Sovereign in your own life. NO moral value or code “outside” of yourself applies to you. ONLY you get to decide what morals ARE for you, and it does not matter if your chosen morals are in “conflict” with someone else’s chosen morals.

That is why I have so often asked the question “whose moral Standards should one accept as their own and why should they accept them?” You have answered that question as it pertains to you. YOU choose whatever morals you WANT to and there is NO “objective truth that generates morals” that has any “authority over you.” That is the same attitude that the “Slave Masters” had. And they backed up their position with the “law of the land” argument too.
It is my sincere hope that you WILL one day reexamine the facts and the set of Moral Standards that you adopt for your own life.