Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD4BB1C8.5DA5E%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in
1414fd53.0408200843.35f09688@posting.google.com on 8/20/04 9:43 AM:

Snit <snit-nospam@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<BD49924C.5D737%snit-nospam@cableone.net>...

"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in
1414fd53.0408182156.4b8c641a@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:

C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:<clund-B7DF27.22542518082004@amstwist00.chello.com>...

In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5EE.13142618082004@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
George Graves <gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:

I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.

Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?

Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.

The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term...

Unborn human.

Still an emotionally charged, and not necessarily correct term.

How on earth do you figure? A fetus is, technically unborn. And by
the genetic yardstick it's human. Therefore, unborn and human is
technically correct.

Whether or not you have some emotional problem with that is another
issue altogether.

The fact that it is unborn is not in question, but the very question of when
to consider something a someone *is* the question.

Define someone. What is a someone, and how do you know YOU qualify?

And why is the word "someone" important? When was the last time other
living humans were stripped of their "someone" status and why?

as am equal to the mother.

What other living human being is not considered equal to other human
beings?

See, your term's implicit bias

I didn't make the rules, I do have a right to question them. The fact
that there exists a law stating that there is a form of living human
being that doesn't in fact deserve the same rights as other human
beings means there is a bias, but it's not on my part.

has lead to asking silly questions.
Take away your bias of seeing "it" as a human, since many do not...

Why should your viewpoint be foisted on a fetus? And why wouldn't it
be stupid and wrong of the "many who do not" to question the living,
individual humanity of the unborn since they are technically and
scienfically so?

and your
question is completely out of context.

I am allowed to ask whatever questions I want, you can choose to
answer them or not.

Give me one example of another human being with such questionable
status.

It is not about killing babies, no
matter how many times idiots repeat that claim.

Then what IS it about?

Abortion.

That's begging the question, not answering it.

Abortion kills living humans. And it has always seemed to me that any
agenda that leads to deliberate human death is ipso facto evil and
wrong.

The question really boils down to when do we place value on "it"

No, the question boils down to, why do YOU have the right to define
the value of another human being?

and how much value in relation to the mother.

Aren't we all created equal with certain unalienable rights? Among
them life, etc?

There is no exact moral or scientific answer that all people will agree on.

Yes there is. This debate was settled long ago; but most people
prefer to live a lie in their political lives, unfortunately they
don't have to live with those viewpoints. They are foisted on others.

Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.

Nor is the wealthfare the right wing supports.

What is "wealthfare?"

Government handouts to the rich...

Such as? Are you upset about farm subsidies or something? How does
that affect you? Perhaps that's a problem with spending.

What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.

What would solve the problem in your view?

Since it's not my problem, I don't care if it ever gets solved, and it
won't. The government has no chance of solving the personal problems
that contribute to people living on the street. Throw them in prison.

You are, even if you do not like it, a part of this society.

Being a part of society means living up to the responsibilities that
come with civilization. Some people are uncivilized, and the
uncivilized should be treated as such.

When you say
it is not your problem, you are wrong.

It is my problem only insofar as I find homeless, stinking panhandlers
to be an eyesore and a public health nuisance. Subsidizing that
behavior only makes it worse. Imprison them.

What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.

Condoms help to prevent AIDs.

Then why haven't they?

What makes you think condoms, when used correctly and consistently, have not
helped reduce both pregnancy and AIDs.

Because the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and AIDS haven't been
reduced.

Now that people are mistakenly thinking that condoms are the magic
balloon that prevents everything, they engage in risk behaviors more.

There is a lot of research to show
that they do...

When people stop dying from AIDS, that "research" will have a lot more
meaning.

not as much as abstinence,

Do you know someone who got AIDS from being celibate?

Condoms have been around longer than AIDS, so you'd think that AIDS would
have gone away in twenty years. But it's worse now.

The ability to abstain has been around much longer than condoms.

People who abstain don't get AIDS.

Using your
logic, abstinence does not prevent AIDs or pregnancy.

Heh, leave it to a leftist to come up with that one.

Are you Christian? :)

Does it matter when the issue is common sense?

Are you an atheist?

I have no idea what political ideology the
good folks who are working on cures hold. Do you?

It's safe to guess that they still believe in the free market.

Um... well that sure encompasses a lot of views....

Not really. Socialism never rewarded hard work nor encouraged
research.

and is not even
supported by your comments. Maybe some are motivated by making the world a
better place.

No one is motivated by "making the world a better place."

I'm not saying that volunteerism doesn't happen, but people have families to
feed, and inventing cures is extremely time consuming and expensive. Not a
venture to become involved in without having to expect rewards.

How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.

Why stop at guns?

I dunno, maybe because they're in the Constitution???

Oh, sorry...

About what? Forgetting about the actual law?

sometimes I forget about the International nature of the Net.

The Net is all-American, baby. ;)

I was thinking in terms of the United States, where I am from.

Then why did you ask the question?

In our
Constitution the word "gun" does not appear.

Did you think the founders were referring to their upper appendages in
the second amendment?

What country are you from?

The United States.

Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.

Where did you get that idea?

Media coverage of the anti-war protests was fairly thorough.

Wow... not in the US, at least not by our mainstream media.

Maybe you just don't pay attention. There were many protests of the
war, and there still are some going on depending on the event.

Where are you?

Washington.

Many Liberals do not like the way Bush is acting.

How is he acting that you have to protest a war that the military is
fighting for your benefit?

Can you defend the idea that the military is fighting a war for my benefit?

Yep.

Can you defend the idea of protesting a war (military) in order
to protest something completely different (president)?

That does not imply they do not want to minimize the risk of
terrorism.

This does:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=8744

Oh...

Scary, isn't it. Go on, condemn them.

looking at a few people in a biased way and concluding how a group
thinks... does not interest me much.

It doesn't interest me when someone starts whining about how
misunderstood they are.

"It's not what you think!"

Yes it is.

Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.

Sure, they should be allowed to live. Or die. As they wish.

So it's live and let die, like I said. Everything the left believes
is about dying.

Your conclusion does not follow logically from my statements.

It does to me.

Care to explain what information you used to come to this seemingly absurd
conclusion?

Care to explain how leftists have an explicit belief in the
preservation of human life as reflected in their political posture,
considering their lockstep support for terrorism, abortion,
euthanasia, drug abuse, medical malpractice lawsuits, irresponsibly
dangerous sexual behavior, etc?

I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.

Only if your examples were accurate...

They are. Your spins just aren't all that compelling.

I bet very little about logic or reason is compelling to you, at least in
this area.

If what you have been doing can pass for logic, that is correct.

Don't flatter yourself.