National H I V Testing Day

[Alycin]

Haha.

Verd, you are cool.

[Alycin]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1587866' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:13 AM']It would also be good to take your own advice in this matter as it seems you have done this before with my posts.[/quote]


If you're going to make accusations, at least post proof.

Oh wait, you can't!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587891' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:14 AM']Haha.

Verd, you are cool.[/quote]

Cool is okay...what I've really been trying to work on is being charitable and avoiding my intrinsic antagonisms. Seriously, you called me out once for my sarcasm and it kind hit me in the forehead. It's so easy to be sarcastic and cutting on these posts because you don't have to actually look the person in the eye. Thanks for that btw.

[Alycin]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1587901' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:24 AM'] Cool is okay...what I've really been trying to work on is being charitable and avoiding my intrinsic antagonisms. Seriously, you called me out once for my sarcasm and it kind hit me in the forehead. It's so easy to be sarcastic and cutting on these posts because you don't have to actually look the person in the eye. Thanks for that btw.[/quote]


Awww I don't even remember that... but you're welcome.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587934' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:02 AM']Awww I don't even remember that... but you're welcome. [/quote]


I was trying to find a link to it...but I'm not really sure how to at this point cuz it was a while back. Basically, I responded to a post of a third party by starting out claiming that I was being objective...but then I proceded to lambast them with righteous antagonism and I finished it off with a really snarky remark...and you were like "I like how you said you were going to be charitable, but then you had to throw in that sarcasm there at the end" And it hit me that I was being a douche...since then I've been more conscious of my self-righteousness...the Litany of Humility by Merry Cardinal del Val sure helps...I pray it a lot after communion and at other times when I feel particularly snarky:

O Jesus, meek and humble of heart,
Hear me.

From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being loved,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being extolled,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being honored,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being praised,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being preferred to others,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being consulted,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the desire of being approved,
Deliver me, O Jesus.

From the fear of being humiliated,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being despised,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of suffering rebukes,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being calumniated,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being forgotten,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being ridiculed,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being wronged,
Deliver me, O Jesus.
From the fear of being suspected,
Deliver me, O Jesus.

That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be chosen and I set aside,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be praised and I go unnoticed,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be preferred to me in everything,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may become holier than I,
provided that I may become as holy as I should,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

[kujo]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1587857' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:03 AM']There is never only one valiad argument to an argument of opinons. That's just being closed minded.
So you would say the pro-life movement is about as perfect as it can be? That there are no improvements that can be made? Good you think that way, but not everyone agree's with that notion.[/quote]

I would say that the pro-life movement should focus more on the issue of federalism which has been trumped by all pro-abortion legislation and court decisions. It removes the right of the state to regulate this practice. If I were to come up with a plan, I would try to get Roe v. Wade overturned based on states' rights. From there, I'd employ a state-by-state plan of lobbying and voter education to have laws passed to outlaw this practice. It will be easier to get things done at the state level than at the federal level, IMHO.

And there is ALWAYS only one argument when the Church issues an opinion on abortion.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1587941' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:12 AM']I would say that the pro-life movement should focus more on the issue of federalism which has been trumped by all pro-abortion legislation and court decisions. It removes the right of the state to regulate this practice. If I were to come up with a plan, I would try to get Roe v. Wade overturned based on states' rights. From there, I'd employ a state-by-state plan of lobbying and voter education to have laws passed to outlaw this practice. It will be easier to get things done at the state level than at the federal level, IMHO.

And there is ALWAYS only one argument when the Church issues an opinion on abortion.[/quote]

That's the best idea I've read in this whole thread. Like many other issues, this IS one that should be decided at the state level.

[kujo]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1587955' date='Jul 1 2008, 04:32 AM']That's the best idea I've read in this whole thread. Like many other issues, this IS one that should be decided at the state level.[/quote]

I'm a little exhausted so I can't articulate this view as well as I usually am, but I feel that the pro-life movement would be able to achieve victories easier on the state level if for no other reason that the complacency and indifference to state politics that infects our political system.

And, for those who would perhaps think otherwise, [b]I THINK THAT ABORTION IS DEPLORABLE AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY!!!![/b] Just because I'm advocating this approach in NO WAY means that I think abortion should be legal, just dealt with differently.

[Veridicus]

Silly Supreme Court having the juridcal power to stomp on state's rights...argh...Can't live with them, Can't live without them...

[kujo]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1588020' date='Jul 1 2008, 05:48 AM']Silly Supreme Court having the juridcal power to stomp on state's rights...argh...Can't live with them, Can't live without them...[/quote]

It's a tough thing. Even our current relatively-conservative court will have a hard time overturning Roe v. Wade because they are all avowed followers of [i]stare decisis.[/i]

[Veridicus]

I'm really worried that when Obama gets elected (I've pretty much consigned myself to this sad, sad, sad fact)...greater access to abortion may become a congressionally legislated matter and if any of our oldest supreme court members step down they will be sure to be replaced by leftists that conform to Obama's Rv.W policy...sad, sad times...

[rkwright]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1587894' date='Jul 1 2008, 01:16 AM']If you're going to make accusations, at least post proof.

Oh wait, you can't![/quote]

I'm not sure this is how you 'win' debates either...

[Alycin]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588124' date='Jul 1 2008, 08:56 AM']I'm not sure this is how you 'win' debates either...[/quote]

I don't take kindly to false accusations.

[rkwright]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1587804' date='Jun 30 2008, 11:29 PM']I never said anything about making testing maditory if thats what your referring to. It should be free and avaliable to everyone. We should be teaching God's law to people.

Correct for point 2. If we spend all our time and effor trying to illegalize abortion, what will it really accomplish? Can the law be changed later on down the road? Will people still perform abortions? Will making it illegal end abortions all together? Although change someone's mind and will it matter if abortion is legal? Who cares if its legal if every person understands its wrong and refuses to do it.[/quote]

I understand you're not making it mandatory. But still we have to legislate it in order to make it 'free and available' to everyone. Thus we have to spend time passing laws for it, finding funding for it. Moreover, you have hinted at the fact that people should be informed of others AIDs, to the tune that if someone is not informed and contracts AIDs they might be able to prosecute the other for murder. Thus there must be some law put in place making it mandatory to disclose if you are a carrier of the disease. So while you say you don't advocate mandatory testing, there are legislative and mandatory elements to your ideas.

So apply your logic all the way through.

You don't think that the abortion battle should be fought on the legislative side because it doesn't really change people's minds.

When then do you believe that HIV should be fought on the legislative side, when you believe if won't really change people's minds?

You can take your whole second paragraph and substitute abortion for HIV testing:

"If we spend all our time and effor[t] trying to [provide 'free and available testing, and holding people responsible for giving others AIDs unknowingly], what will it really accomplish? Can the law be changed later on down the road? Will people still [contract AIDs]? Will [providing testing] end [HIV] all together? Although change someone's mind and will it matter if [there is no HIV testing]? Who cares if [we test for HIV] if every person understands its wrong and refuses to do it"

See my point?

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1587941' date='Jul 1 2008, 02:12 AM']I would say that the pro-life movement should focus more on the issue of federalism which has been trumped by all pro-abortion legislation and court decisions. It removes the right of the state to regulate this practice. If I were to come up with a plan, I would try to get Roe v. Wade overturned based on states' rights. From there, I'd employ a state-by-state plan of lobbying and voter education to have laws passed to outlaw this practice. It will be easier to get things done at the state level than at the federal level, IMHO.

And there is ALWAYS only one argument when the Church issues an opinion on abortion.[/quote]

Kujo your posts always spark my interest.

Though I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't the federalism\states rights will be able to overcome Roe. Roe finds its basis in the right to privacy, and the states interest as a sovereign cannot overcome a constitutionally protected right. The states interest (and federal interest) in the people (ie right to life) is the only thing I think that could trump a right to privacy. Bottom line, I don't think a states rights interest is more compelling than a person's right to privacy.

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588128' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:09 AM']Kujo your posts always spark my interest.

Though I have to disagree with you on this one. I don't the federalism\states rights will be able to overcome Roe. Roe finds its basis in the right to privacy, and the states interest as a sovereign cannot overcome a constitutionally protected right. The states interest (and federal interest) in the people (ie right to life) is the only thing I think that could trump a right to privacy. Bottom line, I don't think a states rights interest is more compelling than a person's right to privacy.[/quote]

Actually, if you think about it, the problem with the decision of [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is that it assumes that the federal government should be in charge of "protecting" a "right to privacy" when, in fact, because that power is not delegated to them by the Constitution. the Tenth Amendment oughta come into play and the "right to privacy" oughta be a state issue.

I see your point though. Just seeing it from different angles.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kujo' post='1588219' date='Jul 1 2008, 10:34 AM']Actually, if you think about it, the problem with the decision of [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is that it assumes that the federal government should be in charge of "protecting" a "right to privacy" when, in fact, because that power is not delegated to them by the Constitution. the Tenth Amendment oughta come into play and the "right to privacy" oughta be a state issue.

I see your point though. Just seeing it from different angles.[/quote]

Well the right is the protection of privacy, and Roe says no government can interfere with that right, federal or state. Even if we say its a state issue, as long as there is a protection of privacy from the constitution even the state government has its hands tied.

I mean I guess I'm asking, if there is a constitutional right to privacy, and abortion\reproductive rights fall into that, why does it matter who 'protects' that right? If its a constitutional right both the state and federal government's hands are tied.

What I am trying to say is that if Privacy is in the Constitution, its not up to the states to decide whether abortion falls under that right.

Now I guess if you're arguing that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right, and is one of those in mind in the 10th, then thats a different issue. But the right to privacy has a long 'tradition' of being included (and excluded) from the Constitution.

Edited July 1, 2008 by rkwright

[kujo]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1588222' date='Jul 1 2008, 12:44 PM']Well the right is the protection of privacy, and Roe says no government can interfere with that right, federal or state. Even if we say its a state issue, as long as there is a protection of privacy from the constitution even the state government has its hands tied.

I mean I guess I'm asking, if there is a constitutional right to privacy, and abortion\reproductive rights fall into that, why does it matter who 'protects' that right? If its a constitutional right both the state and federal government's hands are tied.

Now I guess if you're arguing that the right to privacy is not a constitutional right, and is one of those in mind in the 10th, then thats a different issue. But the right to privacy has a long 'tradition' of being included (and excluded) from the Constitution.[/quote]

I would actually argue that abortion should not fall into the purview of the "right to privacy," which is why it should be dealt with by the states.

[rkwright]

Why is that?

Griswold v. Connecticut?

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
could we get back on topic please?