4588686 Posted March 21, 2016 Posted March 21, 2016 I think that Ronald Reagan really began the process of the Republican Party recruiting highly racist former Democrats and Independents. But some people think that it began earlier. What do you think?
Nihil Obstat Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Hasan said: I think that Ronald Reagan really began the process of the Republican Party recruiting highly racist former Democrats and Independents. But some people think that it began earlier. What do you think? I wonder if, by coincidence, this is around the same time that everyone in favour of murdering babies began to coalesce around the Democratic party.
4588686 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 41 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said: I wonder if, by coincidence, this is around the same time that everyone in favour of murdering babies began to coalesce around the Democratic party. You mean the point in time when the Democratic Party embraced a libertarian position on abortion? That was towards the latter half of the 80s.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Hasan said: You mean the point in time when the Democratic Party embraced a libertarian position on abortion? That was towards the latter half of the 80s. AKA one of several times that the United States sold its collective and metaphorical soul to Satan. Because, just to put a finer point on it, abortion is literally the murder of babies, and those who do so, those who condone the practice, and those who could oppose it and do not, invite eternal consequences. Not that this is relevant or anything. Just like this thread. Nobody brought this up, but here it is anyway.
4588686 Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: AKA one of several times that the United States sold its collective and metaphorical soul to Satan. Because, just to put a finer point on it, abortion is literally the murder of babies, and those who do so, those who condone the practice, and those who could oppose it and do not, invite eternal consequences. Not that this is relevant or anything. Just like this thread. Nobody brought this up, but here it is anyway. I find it interesting that people like yourself don't say that Winchester's political views are inviting Holy Judgement when his position on abortion and the position of the Democratic Party on abortion regarding Roe v. Wade is functionally the same, except that @Winchester is somewhat more pro choice. As were you for years. I guess I'd be interested in what the difference is. Edited March 22, 2016 by Hasan
Nihil Obstat Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 2 hours ago, Hasan said: I find it interesting that people like yourself don't say that Winchester's political views are inviting Holy Judgement when his position on abortion and the position of the Democratic Party on abortion regarding Roe v. Wade is functionally the same, except that @Winchester is somewhat more pro choice. As were you for years. I guess I'd be interested in what the difference is. I did say that a while back. You might have missed it, but I would not be able to dig it up again. Although it was more in reference to his denial of Catholic social teaching, because we were not talking about abortion in particular at the time. I do not know the particulars of Winchester's thought on the subject, but I can say with a clear conscience that I never took a truly libertarian view of abortion.
Peace Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: AKA one of several times that the United States sold its collective and metaphorical soul to Satan. Because, just to put a finer point on it, abortion is literally the murder of babies, and those who do so, those who condone the practice, and those who could oppose it and do not, invite eternal consequences. Not that this is relevant or anything. Just like this thread. Nobody brought this up, but here it is anyway. Aren't you guys up North even worse than us though? Are you suggesting that not taking an active role in opposing abortion is a sin? Perhaps it is a sin, but I don't think we all need to be outside with pickets necessarily. How do you distinguish adultery, missing Mass on Sunday, attacking the pope, and other serious crimes? If you don't actively advocate that people who miss Mass should be thrown in jail do you sin? Edited March 22, 2016 by Peace
Amppax Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 21 hours ago, Hasan said: I think that Ronald Reagan really began the process of the Republican Party recruiting highly racist former Democrats and Independents. But some people think that it began earlier. What do you think? I had always heard Nixon. Southern Strategy, etc.
Winchester Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 On 3/22/2016, 2:18:48, Nihil Obstat said: I did say that a while back. You might have missed it, but I would not be able to dig it up again. Although it was more in reference to his denial of Catholic social teaching, because we were not talking about abortion in particular at the time. I do not know the particulars of Winchester's thought on the subject, but I can say with a clear conscience that I never took a truly libertarian view of abortion. The libertarian view of abortion? I've got one, and it rules out abortion. If I invite someone onto my property, I cannot then dismember that person at will. flooping is an invitation to a fetus. It's not a perfect analogy. But I'm drunk.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Winchester said: The libertarian view of abortion? I've got one, and it rules out abortion. If I invite someone onto my property, I cannot then dismember that person at will. flooping is an invitation to a fetus. It's not a perfect analogy. But I'm drunk. It is a poor justification, yes. Mary Anne Warren laid out a more decisive reasoning against Judith Butler in the 70s. And she describes as well that the consent of the mother is morally irrelevant. 'Trespasser' or not (and that was a tenuous line of reasoning to begin with) abortion is not a question of property rights.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 12 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: It is a poor justification, yes. Mary Anne Warren laid out a more decisive reasoning against Judith Butler in the 70s. And she describes as well that the consent of the mother is morally irrelevant. 'Trespasser' or not (and that was a tenuous line of reasoning to begin with) abortion is not a question of property rights. 个 That should have referred to Judith Jarvis Thomson, not Judith Butler. My mistake.
little2add Posted March 25, 2016 Posted March 25, 2016 “I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” ― Ronald Reagan
Winchester Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 On 3/24/2016, 2:16:11, Nihil Obstat said: It is a poor justification, yes. Mary Anne Warren laid out a more decisive reasoning against Judith Butler in the 70s. And she describes as well that the consent of the mother is morally irrelevant. 'Trespasser' or not (and that was a tenuous line of reasoning to begin with) abortion is not a question of property rights. There is no one libertarian position, but the only one I feel fits into the non-aggression principle is a total rejection of abortion as morally acceptable. It's something even Rothbard got wrong, in my opinion. I think it's Kinsella or Murphy (probably Murphy) who lays out a quick argument for it.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, Winchester said: There is no one libertarian position, but the only one I feel fits into the non-aggression principle is a total rejection of abortion as morally acceptable. It's something even Rothbard got wrong, in my opinion. I think it's Kinsella or Murphy (probably Murphy) who lays out a quick argument for it. But you would not enable a publicly funded organization to protect unborn life, would you? Pay lip service to the wrongness of abortion, but take no action to prevent it happening. Am I wrong?
Winchester Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: But you would not enable a publicly funded organization to protect unborn life, would you? Pay lip service to the wrongness of abortion, but take no action to prevent it happening. Am I wrong? What "publicly funded" organization would stop abortion, and how would it stop them? Edited March 30, 2016 by Winchester
Nihil Obstat Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 39 minutes ago, Winchester said: What "publicly funded" organization would stop abortion, and how would it stop them? Governing bodies pass laws restricting or forbidding it, police and courts prosecute people who do anyway. It is the duty of government to protect the common good.
little2add Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 It is the duty of Catholics to protect and defend the unborn Against the scourge of abortion
Winchester Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 20 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said: Governing bodies pass laws restricting or forbidding it, police and courts prosecute people who do anyway. It is the duty of government to protect the common good. Well if it's their's then I don't need to take action, do I? My duties are fulfilled by voting occasionally and paying whatever fees my rulers assess.
Nihil Obstat Posted March 31, 2016 Posted March 31, 2016 1 hour ago, Winchester said: Well if it's their's then I don't need to take action, do I? My duties are fulfilled by voting occasionally and paying whatever fees my rulers assess. You can do better than that. That is one of the dumbest arguments you have ever made.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now