Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Shot down?

In response to Judicial Ruling posted by pink101:

watched a panel discussion on judicial activism coming out of Yorba Linda by the Cato Institute on C-span Book TV today. I think your idea of judicial activism was firmly shot down in that interview by the conservatives.

You gotta give me more than this, Pink. I don't see ANY argument here that makes me quiver. Just something about an interview you saw that impressed you. Interesting, but hardly persuasive.

» pink101 - Fooey

In response to Activism posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Fooey. It all depends on how the issue is framed. Things can swing as far in one direction as they can in the other and they all make sense to someone.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Pro-life Argument

In response to Pro-life Argument posted by BrianTubbs:
I'm telling you and everyone else that a baby in the mother's womb has his/her own DNA, is growing, is MOVING, has a heartbeat AND brain waves -- all well before the 10th week of pregnancy.
.
Well "before the 10th week"?
.
- 8 weeks: the fetus moves by reflex only.
- 8 weeks: no brain waves (regular electrical patterns).
- 8 weeks: organ functions have not yet developed. The heart is ~beginning~ to form the typical four-chambered structure of mammals (no heart beat yet).
- 16 weeks: fetus has no awareness (including no awareness of pain), because the part of the brain that deals with thought and perception, called the neocortex, has not yet begun to develop the necessary interconnections.
- 20 weeks: in the fetal brain, the first few synapses or connections begin to form among the nerve cells in the neocortex.
- 24 weeks: first random bursts of recognizable brain waves.
- 28 weeks: the onset of cognitive awareness or brain life begins.
http://www.cbctrust.com/prenatal.php
.
The earliest point at which a fetus can possibly survive outside the womb is about 23-24 weeks - although survival is low, and risk of impairment and disability is high.
.
Most partial-birth abortions are performed in the 20-26 week range, some even later than that -- at a time when the fetus has an even higher chance of surviving outside the womb, and it has cognitive awareness. This is the developmental stage where ~I~ have a problem with abortion.

-- posted by Migisi

» paper_turtle - Something which confuses me

.
Conservatives (speaking generally) place strong emphasis on governmental non-interference in the lives of its citizens. Liberals (also speaking generally) believe the government ought to be involved in certain aspects of a citizen's life (e.g., social security).
.
What confuses me is this: how can conservatives talk about non-interference, and then turn around and advocate for interference in what (for pro-choice people) should be solely a matter for a woman and her conscience?
.
And then there's this: most people would say its OK to kill someone in self-defense. If you accept this is true, why isn't abortion also OK?
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Something which confuses me

In response to Something which confuses me posted by paper_turtle:
.
...its OK to kill someone in self-defense. If you accept this is true, why isn't abortion also OK?
.
Most people accept abortion when the pregnancy threatens the woman's life. Even in the anti-abortion bible belt, most states recognize this exception. And the partial-birth rule recognizes this exception too. Isn't that sort of like 'self defense'?

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Something which confuses me

In response to Something which confuses me posted by paper_turtle:

PaperTurtle, pro-lifers are NOT motivated by a desire to control women or interfere in individual choices. We sincerely believe that the unborn baby is a human life worthy of legal protection. It's a life issue for us, and the most sacred right (according to the Declaration of Independence) is the right to life. So, we believe that babies (including pre-born babies) deserve protection.

» Brian Tubbs - Fooey

In response to Fooey posted by pink101:

The fact that people can argue/justify/believe something doesn't change the truth. I am appealing to an objective, external standard here. Basically, I'm talking about the RULES of the game - or the RULES of the Republic.

The legislature makes the laws. The executive carries out the laws, and the judiciary INTERPRETS the laws. And that interpretation is NOT to be based upon the judges' personal agendas, but on the LANGUAGE and CONTEXT of the law(s) in question.

Those are the Rules, Pink. We need to play by them.

» pink101 - Playing By The Rules

In response to Fooey posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Playing by the rules keeps order in society--very important.
.
But, we have come to a place in society where people are able to say, "Rules are made to be broken," and so, we break the rules. In some way of looking at the situation, that is liberty whereas liberty appeals to a higher order than societal law.
.
Some say that progress is the result. Jesus broke the rules, right?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Playing By The Rules

In response to Playing By The Rules posted by pink101:

You absolutely MUST have rules in order to keep order, and this is where I am ESPECIALLY committed to the Founders. They established a certain framework within which I believe we should operate. If we are going to change that framework, then we need to do so legally and constitutionally. Otherwise, the framework stands.

» pink101 - Playing By The Rules

In response to Playing By The Rules posted by BrianTubbs:
.
"You absolutely MUST have rules in order to keep order..."
.
That can be disputed depending on the type group involved. Groups are organized for different purposes and I'm sure you know that.
.

-- posted by pink101