Kerry loses his faith

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I really don't give a darn what the founding fathers thought. In my opinion, God's law is above man's law. It's useless to try to figure out what the founding father's meant because they were only men, albeit important in founding our country, but only men and their opinions should be treated as such. The problem is so many people place the constitution up like it's more sacred than the bible. Yes, even Catholic politicians have called it a sacred document, including Tom Daschle, who thankfully was voted out of office.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='VoloHumilisEsse' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:09 AM']
could this be because of the liberal media (mtv, etc....) that is pushing their agendas just as you have suggested that the conservative media is?

edit:....would it be possible to move this to the debate table? seems more fitting there.... [/quote]
Yeah, so many of the liberals are killing their kids and not having enough of them that they have to poison the minds of the youth to convert them to their ways. They're so afraid of descency restrictions on media because at the current rate they are under-breeding themselves out of existence.

I'm gonna have a bunch of kids and they're gonna outvote the liberals' kids 3 to 1.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Nov 8 2004, 12:10 AM'] I really don't give a darn what the founding fathers thought. In my opinion, God's law is above man's law. It's useless to try to figure out what the founding father's meant because they were only men, albeit important in founding our country, but only men and their opinions should be treated as such. The problem is so many people place the constitution up like it's more sacred than the bible. Yes, even Catholic politicians have called it a sacred document, including Tom Daschle, who thankfully was voted out of office. [/quote]
The Constitution is awesome because it fits under the Natural Law, the way we participate in God's Eternal Law.

[HomeTeamFamily]

i was using the founding fathers thing merely to point out that it was obvioulsy important enough to them, who as i recall founded this country on Christian principles, then it should hold some weight.......not to suggest that mans law is over Gods law....

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:45 AM'] 1. Yes it is. And the whole statement that marie said proves it. "Illegitimate children" huh? So only those born under your standards are approved. SHORTSIGHTED? Yup.

2. It's not murder and genocide is trying to kill of an entire ethnical, political or national group. The baby isn't even born and regardless of all the evidence you think you have about it. It's not the Governments job to judge when a person is alive or not. That isn't the case. As long as the baby is in the mothers womb it's her body noting that it's growing of the mothers nutrients and energy just like any other part of her body. Don't go preaching to me about comparing unborn babies and parts of the body but they both have the same principle. We have the right to do with our body as we like and as long as it's part of the womans body we don't have a say in it.




3. I don't care what the Church preaches. The Church only preaches abstinence and while you're right that is the only 100% way to stop it, guess what buddy, most of the time those people don't really think about what the Church says and by only providing them with one option of birth control then we are preaching less safe sex. Condoms, the pill and the day after pill are all good forms of birth control if used properly. But appereantly you can't use them so the only option is to have sex! YES! I'm sure thousands of teenagers prefer that option not the "ill pull out" o**m ine or the "I won't **m in you" or "you won't get pregnant"

4. Nope. A woman who has an abortion might not EVEN be a woman by todays standards. Responsibility is knowing that the option of abortion is still there and knowing that the option might bring emotional effects. This is were information comes in. If that information is being blocked off by conservative loons the whole spectrum of choice is reduced to just having the baby. By todays standards of abortion a woman can't even think about it because of how difficult it is to even talk to somebody about it.

Being pro-choice isn't being pure "pro-abortion"

Pro-choice deals with the knowledge of the different choices a woman has. And must of the time abortion is put forward as a last resort. [/quote]
1. My exgirlfriend was "illegitimate." A good friend of mine is "illegitimate." It is not a term I apply. I love all the same and the status of their birth is of no consequence. Shortsighted? I think not. The reason I used the term was to designate a popular term used by society to point toward the shame of having a particular "class" of child. The reason I used the term is to show that it made no difference; essentially, that it is meaningless. It seems that you have me quite backward.

2. [i]Genocide[/i]-from the Latin [i]gens[/i] (family, clan, race, nation, class) + [i]caedere[/i] (to kill, to murder). Genocide is the murder of a class of people, usually distinguished by a common genetic link, but not exclusively held to that standard.

Never, ever, debate etymology with a classicist.

It's not the government's job to judge that? Then it must be assumed that life begins at conception, the earliest possible moment for it to begin. Any other assumption is an imposition by the government designating a time to the start of life.

However, while a government can't decide when life begins (and this is exactly our point: that the point of the beginning of life is not arbitrary and up to the say of the government, but rather naturally observable and ethically binding), it can protect life from what is observed to be the beginning of life.

Are you saying that it is perfectly ethical for me, a starving college student, to have my family stop funding me, the government stop funding me, and everyone else stop funding me, solely because it is their money, and to let me starve? There are more than these people involved, there is also I.

You say that we have the right to do with our body as we like. However, the law, which you seem to hold as the ultimate moral authority, does not agree. Self-abuse is illegal and can result in mental asylum or even a prison sentence.

A baby is not a part of a woman's body. The sooner you face the very obvious truth, the sooner you can start debating rationally with us instead of making no sense. The sooner you cling to rationale, the sooner you will become pro-life.

3. The Church does NOT preach only abstinence. It also preaches NFP. Please get that straight.

The problem is not in the "effectiveness" of birth control. Condoms are admittedly only 90% effective (although studies show lower rates). I'll go with this figure. I'll even tell you what...it doesn't matter if condoms 100% effective...they're still wrong! They essentially destroy genders by castrating the male and keeping the female from being able to do what she naturally does. There is no moral difference then between to people having sex with contraceptives and two people, completely separate, bringing themselves to climax. In both situations, they are completely sterile, and they do what they do for their own pleasure alone. They turn an action which is supposed to give of themselves and change it to vain selfishness. Vanity of vanities!

It does not matter to the ethics of the situation what thousands of teenagers will do. An intrinsic evil is an intrinsic evil. It is always wrong and does not sway to the preferences of individuals, no matter how great in number they may be.

4. Responsibility is not contained within knowledge of options, it is contained within actions taken. A woman who is responsible does not murder her children. It is as simple as that.

If I support legislation that allows a five-year-old to play with matches, then I support everything that he might do with those matches, good or bad, because I have to take it all into my evaluation of the law and decide that it is ultimately good for it to be legal, and I am therefore morally accountable. If I support legislation allowing a woman to have an abortion, then I support every outcome by the same logic, except that there is no "good or bad" with abortion, but only bad. I would be morally accountable for every murder I caused.

Try your word manipulation and empty rhetoric somewhere else.

[HomeTeamFamily]

micah you rock

[quote]Never, ever, debate etymology with a classicist.[/quote]

haha

Edited November 8, 2004 by VoloHumilisEsse

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:15 AM'] The Constitution is awesome because it fits under the Natural Law, the way we participate in God's Eternal Law. [/quote]
I wasn't saying that the constitution wasn't good. It's by far one of the greatest documents not divinely inspired. The point I was trying to get across is that we cannot by any means equate what 'life' meant to Jefferson or Franklin when compared to what it means to God. The issue of abortion didn't even exist until about 50 years ago (Kennedy didn't have to deal with it to get elected) and is so dividing because abortion is an attack on life itself. Pornography and homosexuality have generated strong feelings amongst Christians, but legal abortion presents more anguish by far.

The only good thing about supposing what the founding father's meant is that it is a more convincing argument to the secularist intellectuals, but that's about it.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:56 AM'] 1. I think that is what I said. You know the whole "guesses" part. And you just guessed to saying that "includes babies before birth" You just don't know.

2. Hmm...By blocking off a valid option due to religious reasons? Yeah, I think thats it. It seems to me that by thinking that you are saving lifes due to making women give birth to a baby is pretty much in the real of intruding in liberty. Yes you might be right but that isn't supposed to be the only option.

3. Hmm...No.

4. Repented why? Because the propaganda is being shoved in their faces! I don't know about you but I know that if I had made a choice and then had somebody label me and call me various names and at the same time make it unholy I would definately get emotional problems. Why don't you just leave those people alone and if you are really so loving of unborn babies why don't you focus on that and some real reasons instead of making it a dark and evil thing that your religion leads you to believe? [/quote]
1. You're right, I don't know. That's my point. We must presume what protects the most lives. If we err, let it be on the side of life. However, I rest secure that we do not err in this.

2. What religious reasons? Ensuring the rights of all people rests on the inability of any human to define the limits of humanity, except outside of reason (i.e. squirrels cannot be human, the DNA does not match). Humans grow and develop; we know that. It is one of our characteristics. We age. Therefore, age, something intrinsic to the human experience, cannot be a basis for determining the limits of humanity.

3. Your answer is incomplete. Provide reasoning. If you want to debate the Church's position on sex, bring it on.

4. Let's pretend then that they repented because the "propaganda" was being shoved in their faces. How would that bring them emotional healing? Just because the propaganda would stop being aimed toward them? But it is still aimed toward them, simply because they had abortions. Many women who repent of abortions confess the sin a multitude of times after they have repented. What brings them emotional healing is in realizing that the "propaganda" is correct and in turning against their sins. A woman who is simply bombarded with "propaganda" and repents because she does not want to face it anymore is not truly penitant and feels no healing. It is by assent of mind and will to that "propaganda" that healing begins.

I do not condemn women who have had abortions, and neither does the Church. Anyone who sees the Church's condemnation of abortion and feels that they are also condemned is being deceived.

We seek to heal women and to bring them back to a true and genuine understanding of their femininity and their place in the world. We do not see them as evil creatures. Why is it that you suppose we go and pray outside of abortion clinics? When have prayers ever been meant for evil? If they ever have been meant for it, when has evil actually come out of them? We pray for conversion! Why do you think we have counselors there? Do you think they are present to yell at these women? NO! They want to extend to them a message of hope!

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 8 2004, 12:20 AM'] Todays teens are way more liberal than you would expect. And by 2008 there will be plenty more Democrats. [/quote]
That's right! They must be those "mysterious cell phone voters" that were going to come out of the woodworks and vote for Kerry that the polls weren't telling us about! Or were those the "Rock the Vote" and "Vote or Die" Puff Daddy kids? A lot of those sure showed up on Tuesday... or did they? Ask the person from the Kerry/Edwards campaign message boards that was livid because some 18 year old they knew who had registered to vote didn't get out and vote because he was "too hung over." God bless America!

The problem with liberal youth is they get immobilized by apathy and disillusionment. A lot of older liberals from the baby-boomer generation even complain about this. I read an article in a Seattle paper by a pro-choice woman lamenting that the youth of today are incredibly apathetic about abortion -- and the majority of the ones that are [b]not[/b] apathetic about it are pro-life. If youth were increasingly liberal as they say, then why are we still battling over a supreme court decision that happened 30 years ago?

Studies show that youth with a strong working code of faith and values in their life have a greater sense of well-being, efficacy, and hope for the future. These youth also tend towards traditional values and social conservatism.

I don't think a Bush voter would run off and shoot themselves at Ground Zero if he lost, like the Kerry supporter from Georgia did.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:49 AM'] To me sex should be with that somebody you know you love. Regardless of your age...well at least 16...when you do lose that virginity you have to be able to look back and know that you loved that person and if you have moved on then there should be no remorse. Love isn't a defined thing and marriage doesn't make love real. [/quote]
so here you have set a limit on when to have sex...why? what is to stop the limit from being pushed back even further? This is the definition of a slippery slope. "Well, sex is ok, but not until you're 16." Later, "Alright, we can have sex earlier than 16, but no way can it be homosexual." Later, "OK, Homosexuality is completely normal and anybody can do it. Wait, they want to do it with 12 year olds? Ok...but not too often." And so on and so on. Once you start to rationalize sin, you start on the path of approving of sin. It gets greater and greater. So it was with abortion, to the point that people are completely twisted.

SirMyztiq, you show an immature attitude towards love. Love=commitment. Love is not equal to physical desire, or even happiness. Physical desire is fleeting, and [i]that[/i] is why so many idiots get married and then divorced. Nobody understands that true love is not a feeling, it is a [b]decision[/b]. Marriage is making that commitment. If you can't commit, you are doomed to failure. That leaves any relationship that involves sex without the commitment of marriage to be nothing more than a self gratifying mess.

[cmotherofpirl]

"That leaves any relationship that involves sex without the commitment of marriage to be nothing more than a self gratifying mess. "

But once you are in that relationship you can't see further than the nearest bed. Your judgement is clouded, and your world narrows. You can rationalize anything for any reason. Sin has taken over your life.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Nov 8 2004, 02:39 PM'] But once you are in that relationship you can't see further than the nearest bed. Your judgement is clouded, and your world narrows. You can rationalize anything for any reason. Sin has taken over your life. [/quote]
yeah...that's true. You have to be a robot not to experience that...
Or a saint

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Nov 8 2004, 01:20 AM'] Todays teens are way more liberal than you would expect. And by 2008 there will be plenty more Democrats. [/quote]
Lord, help us.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 8 2004, 02:23 PM'] SirMyztiq, you show an immature attitude towards love. Love=commitment. Love is not equal to physical desire, or even happiness. Physical desire is fleeting, and [i]that[/i] is why so many idiots get married and then divorced. Nobody understands that true love is not a feeling, it is a [b]decision[/b]. Marriage is making that commitment. If you can't commit, you are doomed to failure. That leaves any relationship that involves sex without the commitment of marriage to be nothing more than a self gratifying mess. [/quote]
Bingo.