<p>This of course brings up the classic ethics based scenario that the pro-abortion crowd seems to love:</p>
<p>If you enter a burning fertility clinic and there is a container of 30 two week old fetuses on the one hand, and a 4 year old girl on the other hand, who would you save, assuming you have time to save only one? </p>
<p>It’s not a question at all if you don’t recognize the fetuses as being of equal value as the girl, but the hard core anti-abortion crowd would have to argue that saving the 30 fetuses is better.</p>
<p>^ not necessarily – only if they were utilitarian which, as an ethical theory, has some big problems. (but perhaps we can take the abortion discussion to one of the millions of threads on that topic already in existence)</p>
<p>Well (and no offense to you personally) I have a problem with that view. This is what I feel separates the majority of conservatives from the majority of liberals. The liberals make decisions based on emotion, rather than logic. (i’ll use guns as an example because it is an important topic to me, but again, lets not get dragged off topic here people - its just an example). The liberals want to ban guns so that they can “feel” safer, even though it is easy to see logically that banning guns does nothing for one’s actual safety.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>… couldn’t it just be that W wants to endorse McCain?</p>
Wow, I feel just the opposite, that conservatives make decisions based on ideology (e.g., reducing taxes, running up huge deficits), ignoring the merits of an idea that might violate a long-standing tenet of conservative ideology. Conservatism means “no change” so change is bad, no matter what the merits.</p>
<p><a href=“i’ll%20use%20guns%20as%20an%20example%20because%20it%20is%20an%20important%20topic%20to%20me,%20but%20again,%20lets%20not%20get%20dragged%20off%20topic%20here%20people%20-%20its%20just%20an%20example”>quote</a>. The liberals want to ban guns so that they can “feel” safer, even though it is easy to see logically that banning guns does nothing for one’s actual safety.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It’s actually quite the opposite; Republicans want to keep their guns for their “safety”, when it’s not making things any safer. You want a safe nation? Look at Japan, where guns are banned. “It is easy to see logically” – only someone who can’t properly defend their argument would make such a claim. It’s what I say on math tests when I have no idea what’s going on but know that it looks clear to the professor, and so he’ll give me high marks. He doesn’t anyway, though, the ■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>I need something strong enough to fend off my government. They can take away my handguns - they’re useless anyway. But I draw the line at my suitcase nukes.</p>
<p>the only reason obama would/will ever get my vote would be in the primary simply to help him beat hillary. ANYONE is better than hillary, she is a socialist. Any one who votes for her is voting their rights down the toilet.
other than that, MIKE HUCKABEE is the man.</p>
<p>touche’ ek4 - very good point! I have to admit that when it comes to an “us” or “them” situation, I’d rather kill than be killed. Unfortunate that it has to be that way sometimes. Remember THEY declared war / jihad on US, and THEY attacked US first. Thank goodness we have a military who will fight for us - it is called the Department of DEFENSE after all. It WOULD be nice if they didn’t have to KILL anybody tho, wouldn’t it!</p>
<p>But do you know how difficult it is to buy fertilizer? For one it is getting to be very expensive (thankyou, W) and secondly you show need and ID. But the Oklahoma guys had need (farmers) and were known, which would not have prevented that incident.</p>
<p>Can you specify whom you mean by “They?” Isn’t it Al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11? As far as I know, Osama bin Laden is still alive and still mocking us; Al Qaeda not only is still around but has expanded in size and scope. Saddam Hussein? He did not have WMDs. He pretended to have them in order to scare away Iran. So what did we do? We invaded Iraq and now Iran threatens to go nuclear. </p>
<p>It’s better to kill than get killed. It’s even better to kill the right target instead of the wrong one. And you can only do that if you know who the “They” are.</p>
<p>You posted a definition of life. It is concise. Unfortunately,fetuses do not meet its definition (in more than a very vague way - i.e. the same way that, for example, a blood cell does) until a certain point in their development.</p>
<p>You can argue that after that point, there is a viable argument against allowing abortion. Until that point, however, even your definition of life fails to apply to fetuses in more than a facetious way.</p>
<p>Yes, fetuses (even embryos) meet all of those criteria (in some way). But so bacteria, so do skin cells, so do any number of things. Unless you are advocating some kind of absurd view, you still have not provided a definition that meaningfully and selectively justifies banning abortion of embryos/fetuses that are, in many cases, nothing more than a ball of stem cells.</p>
<p>:rolleyes: Actually, someone who doesn’t want this thread to be dragged further off course would say something like that. And don’t you think that only someone who actually can defend their claim would say that, lest they be called out on it rather quickly? I can defend my view with fact and logic (or, to put this in words you can understand, I see your Japan and raise you Great Britain :rolleyes:), but again, I don’t want to make this about gun control.</p>
Agree. So why is it that the Democrats want to restrict our intelligence gathering capability? If we have not been able to capture Osama with our current intelligence capability, how are we supposed to be better at it once the Dems blind us even more?</p>
<p>If we really need to torture our prisoners in order to be safe, then I would like the President and Congress to decide to withdraw from the Geneva Convention and make it an official US policy to permit torture of prisoners. That would be less offensive to me than the current hypocrisy. We are the world’s superpower and there is no reason why we need to act like some third world tyranical regime, say one thing and do something else.</p>
<p>“You mean stop torturing prisoners? illegal wiretapping? undermining the Constitution?”</p>
<p>No, I mean using interrogation methods no more stringent than we use on our own pilots on select terrorist leaders who hold information that can keep us safe. I would gladly allow three terrorists responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans to undergo 60 seconds of fear if it can keep thousands more from being killed. The Democrats would rather have the thousands of citizens dead. </p>
<p>As far as the “illegal” wiretaps and undermining the constitution, the Dems want to add ADDITIONAL restrictions to the existing, fully-legal FISA law. That makes a lot of sense - when you are under attack, you make it easier for the enemy to conduct its attacks. They have clearly lost their minds in a a knee-jerk reaction to the far left community.</p>