Your "non religious" friends are demonstrateably wrong. It's a biological and scientific fact that life begins as soon as a unique DNA sequence is created. And thanks to advances in cyrogenic techniques, hundreds of fertility clinics every day have that life surviving outside of the womb in suspended animation.
So no- philosophy has no place left in this corner of the debate. Move on to legal personhood like everybody else.
The Death Penalty and War are not a part of the five non-negotiables, because unlike abortion, there are times when both are moral. The Death Penalty is the objectively moral choice for a government with the duty to protect society but without the funding or technology to actually do so with a sentence of life in jail. War is a moral choice when it confirms to the Just War Theory- which the war in Iraq arguably does not, but not certainly does not. (if you can follow the triple negative, then you're well on your way to understanding basic Catholic theology).
You do not have the right to be protected from such cooersion at all. Sorry- the athiest point of view does not hold any more protection than I as a Catholic recieved at a public school full of German Apostolic Christians- and they stoned me for being evil and having a TV set. Kids will be cruel- but they will be less cruel if exposed to other biases than their parents encourage.
2nd reply: If Kerry holds the current 10% lead and a lock on all 7 of Oregon's electoral votes, my vote WILL be going to Peroutka based on the same reasoning as the first post. It's a evil of two lessers choice if you're in a swing state, I reason, but if you're not in a swing state, this argument no longer exists because your vote will NOT affect the outcome in any way shape or form.
That booklet was printed by Catholic Answers, not by the Magisterium. Some Bishops agree with it, some disagree- and quite a few say that the non-negotiables only matter if you're voteing for the candidate AGAINST one of the non-negotiables. My vote for Kerry is actually FOR one of the non-negotiables, abortion, because the so-called "pro-life" major party candidate has a rotten record on the subject (having paid for an abortion himself in 1971, and having the number of abortion procedures done in this country go up every year since he took office, after three years of constantly falling during the Clinton administration).
Sometimes a surface label like "pro-choice" or "pro-life" simply does NOT tell the whole story. Unfortuneately there are a few ultraorthodox and ultramontanist organizations both within, and recently excommunicated from, the Roman Catholic Church that are not quite thinking as deeply- and that's where the scandal of Kerry taking communion comes from.
Even in Church teaching- while that booklet is correct that abortion is always an objectively evil moral sin- there's a theological concept called the Principle of Double Effect. The classic case of the Principle of Double Effect is a medical condition known as Ectoptic Pregnancy- where the fetus is implanted in a fallopian tube instead of the womb. Under that circumstance, the choices for the doctor are: 1. Lose both mother and child when the fallopian tube bursts and the mother bleeds to death. 2. Perform an abortion and save the mother.
Due to the nature of ectopic pregnancy, the doctor MAY only have seconds to make the decision if the fallopian tube has already burst and the mother is unconscious in the wating room unaware that she was even pregnant. The Principle of Double Effect says that while the abortion will still be objectively evil and a sin- letting the mother die is a greater objective evil and ALSO a sin.
I would make the argument that reducing funding for medicare so that fewer poor mothers are covered, thus forcing them into the "choice" between a $6000 birth and homelessness due to bankruptcy and a $400 abortion, is objectively evil and makes a pro-life candidate no longer pro-life, based on the non-negotiable of abortion being always and forever an objective evil.
So as you can see- based on the principle of double effect, one can indeed vote for a pro-choice candidate; IF one is doing so with an informed conscience to church teaching and IF one is doing so for pro-life reasons.
To do otherwise, once having informed your conscience to the extent I have, is to support another 144,000 abortions a year, minimum (based on Priests For Life website, which states that someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions are done for economic reasons).
If, by the grace of god one of them captures a state, I'm sure that state would have quite a surplus of retired people to choose from to send as electors more than a month later (seeing as how even Wyoming has 234,000 voters for each elector).
Ok- in which case Bush is still the right answer- and here's why: He believes VERY strongly in Sola Fide (which Peroutka, as a Catholic, does not) and in Once Saved Always Saved (the same idea that Zwingli came up with during the reformation, that Christ's promises are good once and forever). Faith can move mountains- said Christ and Luther- and while I'm a Catholic who will be voting for Kerry, I've got to admit my faith in faith and works is moral, not absolute, certainty. For all I know, Bush's faith will pull off a miracle yet. I see no signs of such a miracle- but it might.
[SARCASM]After 9-11, do we really want muslims to feel welcome here at all?[/SARCASM]
The real answer is yes- as long as they are tolerant of other religions. Prayer in school, if done proberly, can teach tolerance in the secular realm. Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean freedom FROM the religion of others.
Depends- what kind of Lutheran are you? Do you accept the recent (well, 5 year old now) Joint Declaration with the Roman Catholic Church on Justification? If so- I would urge you to strongly consider changing from being legally pro-life to functionally pro-life legally pro-choice; in which case Kerry would fit your view (seeing as how Kerry believes that life begins at conception, and simply disagrees with the idea that legality will control, or even can control, how many abortions actually happen- and would instead seek other good works that would reduce abortion). The problem with Kerry's point of view though is that it's based on reducing abortion due to works (such as universal health care and other direct support of the mother) as opposed to reducing abortion based on faith in the goodness of the American People (to follow law regardless of where it leads).
Oddly enough, Kerry brought up the same faith vs. faith and works argument in the first debate on foreign policy- as a major difference between his strategy and the President's strategy on the War on Terror (it helped that the President kept repeating, over and over and over, that he had "Faith" that we will prevail in Iraq and elsewhere).
Even though the constitutional party candidate will definately get fewer votes- I see him as being a bigger danger to Bush than Badnarik. You see, unlike Bush, who is lying about being a social, political, and financial conservative, Peroutka's the real deal. And of all of the third party candidates- he's the only one who is the real deal (save maybe the Prohibitionists- but they haven't been on the ballot in even a reasonable number of states since the 21st Ammendement, IIRC, which one repealed the 18th anyway?). That makes Peroutka the obvious choice for the social conservative who doesn't want to vote for Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn- or the political/fiscal conservative who hates what is going on with the growth of government and therefore cannot vote for either Kerry or Bush.
Economic degrees are crap- and these job numbers are ignoring the 150,000/month increase in job search population because Bush told the DOL to ignore population increases way back in January 2001.
Break into the system. Steal the data. Remove yours. Get a cheap anonymous webmail address. E-mail it to their CEO. Then erase your tracks. Next quarter for sure there will be a budget for security- and since you know ahead of time, send them a resume.
I started at 7 years, and the first 5 years of contracting were very rough despite some extremely niche skills that paid very well on a few occasions. I willingly went back to work for a big company with the intention of learning all the other skills I needed.
Totally agreed- I started at 8 years out due to involuntary displacement and disability- and 26 months later subcontracted to another contracting company because I couldn't afford the million dollar bond government wanted. I'm about to go permanent now with the same governmental agency- and will do that for the next few years before striking off on my own again.
and don't have children. A consulting career isn't steady enough to support a family. Also, never buy a house and don't get into debt if you can help it- service on mortgage and other debt will eat you alive and destroy your fledgling company.
If you give up on these other ways of being fullfilled now- and put all your time into truly consulting- then you will one day be able to retire in comfort. And hey- postmenapausal women are very sex starved- especially since there are few men that age left.
In 2008, if my fledgling party gets off the ground enough to pay for the plane tickets, we will have whoever our primary candidates end up being at every debate- if nothing else than to break the rules of the debate by heckling the stage.
"Time to kill all the rich white men and take this country back for the TRIBES!" But what if we don't want back the parts you guys have screwed up?
True enough- who would want Manhattan Island back now? Or San Fancisco (oops, no, that tribe died out). Or LA (not sure who controled that area- I think it was orignally a part of Aztlan, the Aztec Empire).
Running CLIENT side? Ok, so I send a client side script to somebody's machine- how is it supposed to know the last router between me and him when it's querying the computer for the local MAC address?
If you run this script server side, yes, I completely agree.
No- we get "The Ability To Post will Be Available In The Mysterious Future" for 20 minutes, then 2 minutes of "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along", and then we can post. Oh yeah- and a link to e-mail the on-duty editor in case of a serious enough problem for the story to be yanked- I've had a couple of dupes yanked that way.
Just because you don't recognize the goal of actually living as a part of nature and in harmony with nature does not mean that the goal does not exist.
http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowC ode.asp?lngWId=4&txtCodeId=6312 with a client-side VB Script (took me some time to find this, but it does exist). Might be IE specific though...not sure. As for it being trivial to change- well it's rather trivial to delete a tracking cookie also. But which is a luser more likely to know how to do? Hit "clear cookies" in IE or change their MAC address?
Slashdot Mirror
Your "non religious" friends are demonstrateably wrong. It's a biological and scientific fact that life begins as soon as a unique DNA sequence is created. And thanks to advances in cyrogenic techniques, hundreds of fertility clinics every day have that life surviving outside of the womb in suspended animation.
So no- philosophy has no place left in this corner of the debate. Move on to legal personhood like everybody else.
The Death Penalty and War are not a part of the five non-negotiables, because unlike abortion, there are times when both are moral. The Death Penalty is the objectively moral choice for a government with the duty to protect society but without the funding or technology to actually do so with a sentence of life in jail. War is a moral choice when it confirms to the Just War Theory- which the war in Iraq arguably does not, but not certainly does not. (if you can follow the triple negative, then you're well on your way to understanding basic Catholic theology).
You do not have the right to be protected from such cooersion at all. Sorry- the athiest point of view does not hold any more protection than I as a Catholic recieved at a public school full of German Apostolic Christians- and they stoned me for being evil and having a TV set. Kids will be cruel- but they will be less cruel if exposed to other biases than their parents encourage.
2nd reply: If Kerry holds the current 10% lead and a lock on all 7 of Oregon's electoral votes, my vote WILL be going to Peroutka based on the same reasoning as the first post. It's a evil of two lessers choice if you're in a swing state, I reason, but if you're not in a swing state, this argument no longer exists because your vote will NOT affect the outcome in any way shape or form.
That booklet was printed by Catholic Answers, not by the Magisterium. Some Bishops agree with it, some disagree- and quite a few say that the non-negotiables only matter if you're voteing for the candidate AGAINST one of the non-negotiables. My vote for Kerry is actually FOR one of the non-negotiables, abortion, because the so-called "pro-life" major party candidate has a rotten record on the subject (having paid for an abortion himself in 1971, and having the number of abortion procedures done in this country go up every year since he took office, after three years of constantly falling during the Clinton administration).
Sometimes a surface label like "pro-choice" or "pro-life" simply does NOT tell the whole story. Unfortuneately there are a few ultraorthodox and ultramontanist organizations both within, and recently excommunicated from, the Roman Catholic Church that are not quite thinking as deeply- and that's where the scandal of Kerry taking communion comes from.
Even in Church teaching- while that booklet is correct that abortion is always an objectively evil moral sin- there's a theological concept called the Principle of Double Effect. The classic case of the Principle of Double Effect is a medical condition known as Ectoptic Pregnancy- where the fetus is implanted in a fallopian tube instead of the womb. Under that circumstance, the choices for the doctor are:
1. Lose both mother and child when the fallopian tube bursts and the mother bleeds to death.
2. Perform an abortion and save the mother.
Due to the nature of ectopic pregnancy, the doctor MAY only have seconds to make the decision if the fallopian tube has already burst and the mother is unconscious in the wating room unaware that she was even pregnant. The Principle of Double Effect says that while the abortion will still be objectively evil and a sin- letting the mother die is a greater objective evil and ALSO a sin.
I would make the argument that reducing funding for medicare so that fewer poor mothers are covered, thus forcing them into the "choice" between a $6000 birth and homelessness due to bankruptcy and a $400 abortion, is objectively evil and makes a pro-life candidate no longer pro-life, based on the non-negotiable of abortion being always and forever an objective evil.
So as you can see- based on the principle of double effect, one can indeed vote for a pro-choice candidate; IF one is doing so with an informed conscience to church teaching and IF one is doing so for pro-life reasons.
To do otherwise, once having informed your conscience to the extent I have, is to support another 144,000 abortions a year, minimum (based on Priests For Life website, which states that someplace between 12% and 21% of abortions are done for economic reasons).
If, by the grace of god one of them captures a state, I'm sure that state would have quite a surplus of retired people to choose from to send as electors more than a month later (seeing as how even Wyoming has 234,000 voters for each elector).
Ok- in which case Bush is still the right answer- and here's why: He believes VERY strongly in Sola Fide (which Peroutka, as a Catholic, does not) and in Once Saved Always Saved (the same idea that Zwingli came up with during the reformation, that Christ's promises are good once and forever). Faith can move mountains- said Christ and Luther- and while I'm a Catholic who will be voting for Kerry, I've got to admit my faith in faith and works is moral, not absolute, certainty. For all I know, Bush's faith will pull off a miracle yet. I see no signs of such a miracle- but it might.
[SARCASM]After 9-11, do we really want muslims to feel welcome here at all?[/SARCASM]
The real answer is yes- as long as they are tolerant of other religions. Prayer in school, if done proberly, can teach tolerance in the secular realm. Freedom of religion should not be construed to mean freedom FROM the religion of others.
Depends- what kind of Lutheran are you? Do you accept the recent (well, 5 year old now) Joint Declaration with the Roman Catholic Church on Justification? If so- I would urge you to strongly consider changing from being legally pro-life to functionally pro-life legally pro-choice; in which case Kerry would fit your view (seeing as how Kerry believes that life begins at conception, and simply disagrees with the idea that legality will control, or even can control, how many abortions actually happen- and would instead seek other good works that would reduce abortion). The problem with Kerry's point of view though is that it's based on reducing abortion due to works (such as universal health care and other direct support of the mother) as opposed to reducing abortion based on faith in the goodness of the American People (to follow law regardless of where it leads).
Oddly enough, Kerry brought up the same faith vs. faith and works argument in the first debate on foreign policy- as a major difference between his strategy and the President's strategy on the War on Terror (it helped that the President kept repeating, over and over and over, that he had "Faith" that we will prevail in Iraq and elsewhere).
Even though the constitutional party candidate will definately get fewer votes- I see him as being a bigger danger to Bush than Badnarik. You see, unlike Bush, who is lying about being a social, political, and financial conservative, Peroutka's the real deal. And of all of the third party candidates- he's the only one who is the real deal (save maybe the Prohibitionists- but they haven't been on the ballot in even a reasonable number of states since the 21st Ammendement, IIRC, which one repealed the 18th anyway?). That makes Peroutka the obvious choice for the social conservative who doesn't want to vote for Bush the Betrayer of the Unborn- or the political/fiscal conservative who hates what is going on with the growth of government and therefore cannot vote for either Kerry or Bush.
Halfway through Bush's term, I was still unemployed and IT jobs loss was continuing.
It's still continuing today- only construction and retail have seen gains, and neither one of those pays as much as manufacturing or IT did.
Economic degrees are crap- and these job numbers are ignoring the 150,000/month increase in job search population because Bush told the DOL to ignore population increases way back in January 2001.
Better yet- change the ammount that neighbor who has all the loud parties owes- to zero. And see how long it takes managment to notice.
Break into the system. Steal the data. Remove yours. Get a cheap anonymous webmail address. E-mail it to their CEO. Then erase your tracks. Next quarter for sure there will be a budget for security- and since you know ahead of time, send them a resume.
I started at 7 years, and the first 5 years of contracting were very rough despite some extremely niche skills that paid very well on a few occasions. I willingly went back to work for a big company with the intention of learning all the other skills I needed.
Totally agreed- I started at 8 years out due to involuntary displacement and disability- and 26 months later subcontracted to another contracting company because I couldn't afford the million dollar bond government wanted. I'm about to go permanent now with the same governmental agency- and will do that for the next few years before striking off on my own again.
and don't have children. A consulting career isn't steady enough to support a family. Also, never buy a house and don't get into debt if you can help it- service on mortgage and other debt will eat you alive and destroy your fledgling company.
If you give up on these other ways of being fullfilled now- and put all your time into truly consulting- then you will one day be able to retire in comfort. And hey- postmenapausal women are very sex starved- especially since there are few men that age left.
In 2008, if my fledgling party gets off the ground enough to pay for the plane tickets, we will have whoever our primary candidates end up being at every debate- if nothing else than to break the rules of the debate by heckling the stage.
"Time to kill all the rich white men and take this country back for the TRIBES!" But what if we don't want back the parts you guys have screwed up?
True enough- who would want Manhattan Island back now? Or San Fancisco (oops, no, that tribe died out). Or LA (not sure who controled that area- I think it was orignally a part of Aztlan, the Aztec Empire).
Running CLIENT side? Ok, so I send a client side script to somebody's machine- how is it supposed to know the last router between me and him when it's querying the computer for the local MAC address?
If you run this script server side, yes, I completely agree.
No- we get "The Ability To Post will Be Available In The Mysterious Future" for 20 minutes, then 2 minutes of "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along", and then we can post. Oh yeah- and a link to e-mail the on-duty editor in case of a serious enough problem for the story to be yanked- I've had a couple of dupes yanked that way.
Just because you don't recognize the goal of actually living as a part of nature and in harmony with nature does not mean that the goal does not exist.
You can with the VB script referenced above.
http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowC ode.asp?lngWId=4&txtCodeId=6312 with a client-side VB Script (took me some time to find this, but it does exist). Might be IE specific though...not sure.
http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowC ode.asp?lngWId=4&txtCodeId=6312 with a client-side VB Script (took me some time to find this, but it does exist). Might be IE specific though...not sure. As for it being trivial to change- well it's rather trivial to delete a tracking cookie also. But which is a luser more likely to know how to do? Hit "clear cookies" in IE or change their MAC address?
Go client side with the coding and return it as a CGI variable in the login script: http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb/scripts/ShowC ode.asp?lngWId=4&txtCodeId=6312