cthulu23

So you support murdering babies?

Edit: before anyone gets upset, let me say that I'm trying to point out an inconsistency.

Kalibah

I didnt say I supported the war, I said I wasnt in favor of it- but I realize it was neccessary now. That isnt saying I supported it - just realized it was necssary.


saint thomas aquanis made the argument that there was such a thing as just war....



He said Bush's view on stem cell research was that way because " right wing ideologies" - when Bush has the reverence for life in stem cells- Thats the Catholic churchs same views- so kerry is saying having reverence for life in stem cells = right wing ideologies....

cthulu23

You don't support it (its still going on, if you haven't noticed) but you believe it's necessary? Really?

No, Kerry is saying that Bush's views on stem cells equal right-wing ideology. Can't we have a little nuance here?

Ustwo

What inconsistency? Its easy to 'think' like others do and use their language.

If I were a devout catholic then abortion would have to be murdering babies, period.

If I were a member of NOW I'd say.

A fetus is just an extension of a woman’s body, there is no independent life until it is born.

or I could be John Kerry and say

I think abortion is wrong but I support a woman’s right to choose.

or I could be Ustwo and say

I think abortion is tragic but Darwin works in mysterious ways.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

By the examples given in this post, you were expressing the catholic stance, not the social darwinist example that you labeled as your own belief. I think that my confusion is understandable.

Kalibah

I support our troops- and I believe its neccesary. I believed at the start we might be better waiting on more nations- but not its evidedent that because they were being paid off France, Germany and Russia were not going to help... But being that I did not vote for/against the war, nor did I give the order to start it I have no control over it, and thus its a moot point. Mr. Kerry DOES/DID have control over voting for the war, he has control over gay marriages ( voted against the defence of marriage act) he is AGAINST the partial birth abortion ban, and against PRO-life policies. He wants to promote, and fund embyronic stem cell research.

Potentially he has the ability to lift the ban on the ltitle foothold Pro-Lifers have ( partial birth abortion ban) he will NOT defend the sanctity of marriage, and he will NOT protect unborn children, nor Embyros.


And yes i feel that by saying George W. Bushs views on embryos are extreme right - wing ideologies- he is stating that thesse views are extreme right wing ideologies.


TO flaunt he is a catholic when ALL OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT PERTAIN TO CATHOLICS THIS ELECTION HE HAs OPPOSITE POlITICAL VIEWS WITH.


As Catholics its been noted that we have to help make our moral views the Law.


Im not saying hes a bad catholic, Im saying its hypocritical use Catholsism to get ahead in the polls, when your NOT reflecting those views.


I would not be suprised if he is elected, and repeals the ban on partial birth abortion, he is excommunicated. Abortion is one of the things that a massive majority of catholics agree on, and in most practicing families it is a litmus test for politicians. When you say your Catholic, and your take stances that do not connect at all with the Church, your opening yourself up to these kinds of ridicule.


that said mr.kerry is a smooth talker, it gets a lot of play for republicans, but let me say- he could make a hella lotta money if he stayed in Law.


He never says hes "for gay marriage" - in fact he "believes its between a man and a woman" but at the same time says that " we have to afford homosexuals their costitional right to marry" - everyone hears what they want to hear.

Same for abortions - hes " pro- life " and belives " life begins at conception" but wont protect life- because we must afford women their "constitional right to choose".

He is pro - life - but he wont protect life
He isnt for same sex marriage personally- but he wont outlaw it


Jul 30, 2004: *"The Bible itself - I mean, everything talks about different layers of development. That's what Roe v. Wade does. It talks about viability. It's the law of the land."

He stated - from my interpretation - correct me if im wrong- that we cannot infuse our moral beliefs into the Law- but thats precisly what the catholic church

"
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."

Faithful Citizenship

cthulu23

i suspect that John Paul II might see it differently. Regardless of whether or not you are a ranking official in the administration, supporting a war that the Vatican opposes goes aginst CAtholic thinking. I hate to burst your religious bubble, but that's the truth. Anyone could use the same equivocation to support any Catholic opposed idea..."I let my woman have an abortion, but I'm not on the supreme court so it's okay."

I guess since you're not a national politician that your own anti-catholic views don't count. Maybe I should pick up my lapsed catholic heritage....I never knew they had become so casual!

Speaking of hearing what you want to hear, Kerry has never, never endorsed a "constitutional right to marry" for gays. I don't agree with that, but it's the truth.

I never doubted your strict adherence to the abortion doctrine, I've just pointed out your divergence from Catholicism in other areas. What about your obligation in conscience to work against the war?

Kalibah

I'll work my way backwards




I have no obligation to work against the war since I have no control against the war. Again I remind you war is not intrinisicly evil. The Church's views are VERY clear on this, War isn't "good" but at the same time it should only be used as a very last option. Since both Canidates were "for" the war, it is clearly a non-sequitor in a political debate- but since this is about john kerry... how we brought George W. Bush and him being for the war into it... then we can get into it


"War cannot be decided upon, even when it is a matter of ensuring the common good, except as the very last option."


from the Pope


Now we might as well drop this issue right here and now because there is NO way you could EVER prove war is a last option if you wanted to get nitpicky. Couldnt we have let hitler have France in WWII? He said he wouldn't trouble Britain if they left him alone ( essentially). Its a grey area, and its impossible for ANYONE other than God to decide if a war was the very last option. But as I stated both Canidates were " for" the war, the issue is how they went about it.

Again as I said above, he takes both sides. He cant vote AGAINST the defence of marriage act, and act like he isn't for giving gays rights to marry.

Its clearly another issue where if you arent FOR it - in the eyes of the Catholic church, your against it. If you are pro-choice- dont pretend your aligned with the Church... your not.

tspikes51

Amazing how any topic mentioning religion in any way becomes a brooding ground for flaming religions. Sad thing is, we aren't supposed to do that on the TFP, and our very own founder has been caught red-handed.

__________________
"I'm telling you, we need to get rid of a few people or a million."
-Maddox

cthulu23

Has the pope endorsed this war or condemned it? No matter what statements there are dealing with just war on a CAtholic scale, this Iraq adventure doesn't meet that criteria.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/303/124.php
Can you doubt the words of the Pontiff? Why is this pronunciation selectively ignored? Given your earlier statements, you have a moral obligation to adhere to this. If being "powerless" in the face of an issue is a valid excuse, then I guess I can justify a whole lot of things that the church doesn't agree with.

Kerry has NEVER come out for gay marriage. Any statement to the contrary is just plain wrong.

As was implied above, if you don't oppose the war, don't pretend to be aligned with the church....you're not.

Kalibah

By not banning it he is not protecting the sanctity of marriage.

And again we've spun way off topic with this war issue, because mr.kerry voted for it- Both are wrong and will go to hell then?

But back to the issue in point-

Mr. Bush
PROS

Against abortion
For protecting the sanctity of marriage
Against stem cell research

Cons
Was for the war ( which ISNT INTRSINCLY EVIL)


Mr. Kerry

PRO
isnt "for" gay marriages

Cons

Against ban on partial birth abortion
wont answer if he'll use roe v wade in litmus test for Suprm Court
WONT protect the sanctity of marriage
Wants MORE embyronic stem cell research
Was "for" the war



And about gay marriages
"God established the family as the basic cell of human society. Therefore, we must strive to make the needs and concerns of families a central national priority. Marriage must be protected as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman and our laws should reflect this principle."
Faithful Citizenship




This was a thread about Kerry being Excommunicated- and his views in reflection to that of the Catholic church, I stated I wasnt for the war, and you say "I've just pointed out your divergence from Catholicism in other areas. What about your obligation in conscience to work against the war?"




But IF i voted for Kerry - id be supporting the war as well...

So assuming that there are degrees of evil

War is not intrinsicly evil. Abortion is. Stem Cell research ( via damaging embyros) is. Gay Marriage is.

As stated countless times, it is not ONLY our duty to make sure our laws reflect these beliefs. Stating that you will keep your beliefs seperate from the poltical process is ludacrious.

And if you need a History Lesson, as mr.kerry said it would be up to states to ban gay marriages

Q: You also said that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional.

KERRY: I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. For 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states.

From Issues 2000.org


Abortion was left up to states until Roe V. Wade- and the supreme court did away with the states rights to outlaw abortion.as Ive said before- hes playing both sides. he believes its between a man and a woman, but at the same time wont protect it. He had a chance to do it. Defence of marriage act which he called " fundamentaly ugly".


and as to your " if you dont oppose hte war, dont pretend your aligned with teh catholic church.. your not"

I hate to pull a Clinton, but what your definiation of oppose?

I was not FOR it...

Kalibah

Oh and I was reading some Catholic websites and I noticed the following

Catechism of the Catholic Church," is that abortion is always wrong, while there may be circumstances -- although "very rare" in modern times -- when state-approved capital punishment is possible."

cthulu23

Personally, I think that gays should be able to marry. As for passing a constitutional amendment, we can't just amend the constitution to endorse every Christian belief, can we?

If you're a catholic, supporting this war goes against the words of the Pope.

But you now support it, as you thought it was "necessary" and you don't even pretend to work against it. The Pope has made clear the position of the Catholic Church as it concerns the Iraq war. Regardless of whether the Vatican has an escape clause regarding "just" war, they have chosen not to exercise it in this case. Your complaint revolved around Kerry claiming to be Catholic while taking non-Catholic stances. I've just tried to illustrate how that trait is not so uncommon even amongst his Catholic detractors.

Kalibah

I dont "support" the war. It think the war on terror is necessary - that doesnt mean i support it- I'm not for or against it- but it was necessary. I'm unsure about where by not even "pretending to work against it" has to do with this issue. I dont go to war protests- but that doesnt mean Im not against it.

If you support same sex marriage you are not following the Catholic Doctrine.

And yes actually according to the catholic doctrine we must "endorse" every catholic belife. as I quoted above its our duty to make sure that the law of the land reflects our own moral laws.


Plain and simple. If your not a Catholic(?) then this isnt worth discussing ( most non-catholics view the churche's belief at precisly what kerry calls it
extreme right wing ideology) and if you are Catholic I neednt be arguing with you as there are better ways for you to pertain the Churchs stances and beliefs - from your pastor. In which case How can you be for same sex marriage if the pope is against it? I feel it would be a bit hypocritical for you to critisize me for saying the war is necessary when you believe Gays should marry.

I believe that sometimes police must use force to capture a criminal- that it is necessary for them to do their jobs- but that doesn't mean I support their using it ( i would rather they didnt - but if they deemed they had to- then so be it).




Its a grey area and im having trouble explaining myself- but as i stated about it would be hypocritical for you to critisize me on it when you believe gays should marry.

Ustwo

Actually this wouldn't be social Darwinism but good old fashioned Darwinism.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

I never claimed to be following Catholic doctrine...I'm only pointing out a perceived inconsitency.

I asked if every Catholic belief should be put into a constitutional Amendment. I'm pretty sure that most Catholics (and most other people of all religions) understand that there are better mechanisms for conveying religious morality then constitutional amendments.


I'm only playing devil's advocate, trying to point out the aforementioned inconsistency. Obviously you aren't getting or don't agree with what I'm saying. I'm sure everyone else is as tired of this argument as I am, so I'll give it a rest.

cthulu23

Good old fashioned Darwinism? How does that work? Do you victimize the weak, elderly or young because they are easier targets?

Ustwo

I don’t' think you understand what Darwinism is. In its true form, Darwinism isn't survival of the fittest in terms of being smarter, stronger, faster, whatever. Its the ability to reproduce. It doesn’t matter how you do this, as long as your genes get passed on to the next generation. If you do this by 'victimizing the weak' or setting up a daycare facility it doesn't matter, as long as you have kids who in turn reproduce.

Social Darwinism is thinking that the upper classes in society are the upper classes because they are better then the lower classes. They are smarter, more gifted, whatever. It is used by some as an excuse to exploit the lower classes, or not care about their issues. While there is some truth that more gifted individuals may rise above their peers in social status, it has nothing to do with Darwinism. In fact because the upper classes tend to have fewer kids, they are 'less fit' then the lower classes. Now one study did challenge this by looking at children fathered out of wedlock, aka bastards, and found that the higher your rank in society the more bastard children you had and in fact, by Darwinism, you would be more fit (it was done for Spain and Spanish Royalty) but I'd think that was more of a blip (plus I'm not sure how they determined parentage) then a true trend.

Now lets take abortion. Abortion is limiting someone’s reproduction. Without abortion they would have a child who would pass on their genes in turn. With abortion this does not happen. As far as Darwinism is concerned these people may as well be infertile as they do not have any viable offspring.

Those more inclined to have children will, while those who are not won't. As a long trend this could very well effect human evolution.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Kadath

Darwinism is a theory that no longer applies to human beings in any regard, as those less able to survive in the current environment are given aid and thus made able to pass on their genes.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Superbelt

Marsupials seem to have done ok in regards to survival and the ability to thrive. And they have been practicing abortion since their evolution. The kangaroos, koalas, tasmanian devils, wombats and Opossum are all able to terminate their post gestation embryos. They do this when they are under pressure. Usually injury to the mother or a general lack of adequate food marsupial females have the ability to stop feeding which starves the embryo.

cthulu23

If you didn't notice, I was being more then a little facetious in my earlier post.

Darwinism, or natural selection to be more specific, is about the interplacy between the biological traits of organisms and their environment. Creatures that are better adapted biologically to their environment will proliferate, those that are poorly adapted will not. The human practice of abortion is hardly a biological trait and has little to do with the subject.

Willravel

Which of the following groups is more likely to have more than 5 kids?
A. German
B. Latino
C. British
D. French

If you guessed B., you are correct (based on studies).

Which of the following countries is most effected by unclean water, causing sickness and death?
A. Britan
B. America (U.S.A.)
C. Japan
D. Combodia

If you guessed D., you are correct.

If you are born with a serious medical condition (i.e. heart condition, retardation, deformaty), which country would you likely die in?

A. Somolia
B. Iraq
C. Russia
D. All fo thee above

If you guessed D., you are correct.

Which countries are you likely to be exposed to radiation in?

A. Iraq
B. Japan
C. North Korea
D. America

A. is correct.

Modern influences on the evolution of man.

cthulu23

These influences have nothing to do with Darwin's theories, although they do showcase tendencies in human cultures and the global disbursement of wealth.

Ustwo

Not true. The selection criteria has been changed, issues that were fatal may no longer be, but the pressures are still there. The direction of evolution has changed, not the concept. Darwinism is not about being able to survive ‘in the wild’ its about being able to reproduce, period.




One of them is a Marsupial, the other is a human. You will note they are phenotypically different. They have also followed different evolutionary paths. The unconscious decision of marsupials to terminate a pregnancy based on the chance of survival and environmental conditions bears little similarity to a female human in a western society having an abortion. Even in cases where a female human may well be unable to provide for her young, the social structure will allow it, even if the female human plays no role in the child’s upbringing. Therefore the selection criteria for a human female choosing abortion is different then that of a kangaroos, and is different then the infanticide of a gerbil or lion. All of these processes change the evolutionary path of the animal, but not necessarily in the same direction.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

cthulu23

As stated before, darwinism is more then whether or not an animal can reproduce....it is about biological traits, environment and evolution.

Ustwo

No its not. Biological traits, environment, and evolution all effect the ability to reproduce, but its only the reproduction that matters. If your trait is to terminate your young, then it will effect reproduction, which can effect evolution. As genes wobble between extinction and fixation these traits matter, but only in how they effect reproduction.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

irateplatypus

i guess i've never fully comprehended the arguments that are some variety of: chimpankangypus's do it in their natural state, therefore, it must be beneficial or acceptable for humans to do it as well.

i've seen this proposed for such issues as capital punishment, abortion and homosexuality. that somehow if it's "natural" then it must be good... i'm pretty sure i don't buy that, at least not without one eye open. i'm fairly certain darwin would not have approved of it.

the problem is this: people only use this position when it helps their cause but are unwillingly to take anything beyond their preferred sample.

if natural is good, and we only need a few species from which to make an assumption: i propose we select our President according to the natural goodness found in the common beta fish.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

Kadath

So Wilt Chamberlin is the winner of the Darwin Olympics?

__________________
it's quiet in here

Ustwo

Its not about how much sex you have but how many children. If you have sex only 10 times in your life but you have 10 sets of twins out of it, you have done well geneticly (provided those children reproduce as well). I know Chamberlin wrote about how many 1000's of women he had sex with, but I do not know if those unions 'bore fruit' so I can not speculate as to his genetic fitness.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Kadath

Indeed. I was just trying to inject some humor into the discussion.

__________________
it's quiet in here

Ustwo

You will have to forgive me, as the concept of evolution and Darwinism in particular is so wildly misconstrued, I've assumed the base knowledge is zero and hence I was unable to see the wheat from the chaff.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Lebell

Well, I thought it was funny...

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

cthulu23

The study of natural selection focuses more on the passing of the traits that ensure reproduction.

From
Wikipedia:
Of course reproduction plays a part, but it is only one facet amongst many.

Ustwo

Not to slice rabbits here, but it is the ONLY trait that matters. All others do not matter unless they aid in reproduction. Calling it a facet amongst many speaks of your lack of understand of basic Darwinism. No matter how strong, how fast, how smart, how well fed you are, it means NOTHING if you do not reproduce. The passing of ones genes to the next generation is the center point.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Lebell

Guys, It really sounds like you're saying the same thing, but splitting hairs over how to say it.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!