the "common sense" you claim to exemplify doesn't exactly seem to be all
that common. i've got news for you: poll after poll after poll shows that the
majority of people in the country want legal abortion. they don't want it to
be easy, they don't want it to be considered just another method of birth
control, but they don't want to overturn roe v. wade. and even larger
amounts of people support abortion in cases of rape (where you seem to
suggest women should be forced to have the baby while we find and kill
the rapist) ditto for an issue like federal funding for stem cell research,
which huge majorities support. schoolboards that try to impose
creationism (or intelligent design or
jesus-the-one-true-lord-created-the-universe or whatever the wingnuts are
labeling it these days) get booted out of office.

something you don't seem to grasp is there's a big difference between a
lone lefty spouting off on a message board or a blog about their frustration
with the religious right and somebody running for public office on that
platform. who exactly is attacking conservative christians? the democratic
establishment has been spending every waking hour since 2004 trying to
figure out how to appeal to conservative christians--mark warner's stock is
rising for the presidential nomination precisely because he's proven he can
appeal to those voters. seriously, isn't it really hard to keep up the sense
that your christian conservative values are under attack when the
republican party (and, by extension, the religious right) controls the
executive, legislative, and increasingly the judicial branch?
but then again there is that radical secularist agenda that wants to tell
schoolkids that the earth isn't 6000 years old, that people that are different
from you aren't a threat to your way of life, and that the country isn't
called the united states of jesus. pretty scary stuff!

formatting is your friend^

As druu said, the loudest voices do not automatically represent the majority or even necessarily those in power. Consider how many people you're listening to against the 59 million that voted for Kerry in '04.

Creationism is fine in public schools in a comparative religions (and perhaps philosophy) course. The issue with Intelligent Design is that they are the same ideas being taught as science.

Terrorism is a crime. Criminal suspects are formally charged and have rights until they are convicted. To presume guilt due to the nature of the crime goes against America's legal system. I don't see anywhere in Democratic rhetoric that goes against this.

A fetus has life, so do plants. Pro-life to the extreme means that salad is murder. Even if you make a distinction of a human life, you have no secular argument for personhood until 24-ish weeks into the pregnancy when systems development is complete.

Does the Democratic party need some work to be viable? Absolutely. Adopting a more Republican platform won't work. It needs to differentiate itself, and most attempts to do that have backfired. I wouldn't be so concerned about their state if I thought McCain had a shot at the Republican nomination.

So sensei, you are perfectly fine with Congress as it is and the current Administration?

If you're fine with the status quo then shut up.

As far as creationism vs. evolution:
Evolution is a scientific theory, with a basis in logic and empirical evidence to support it.

Creationism is a religious theory, with a basis in The Bible, which is not everybody's holy book, and therefore has no place being taught in public schools in our secular nation. (No, we are not a Christian nation, no matter what the Fundamentalist Right would have you believe.)

If you want Creationism taught in public schools, let it be taught in a Religion class, along with the Buddhist, Muslim, Taoist, Hindi, and other major religious teachings on the origins of the universe.

God, I WISH the Democrats went far left at least once during a presidential election. At least then, the debates wouldn't put me to sleep.

If my boy Dennis Kucinich were up against Bush during the '04 debates, that shit would get higher ratings than American idol. Sure, the Democratic Party would lose because Kucinich is a tiny man and tolerant of the ghey, but at least there would be a real difference between the candidates.

that is such a cold statement. Besides. There is the whole issue of sentience. I believe that the whole pro-life argument referrences the idea of "life" to be more than just what a plant experiences. And the issue of "systems development is complete" seems like a weak argument for personhood because a "fetus" starts out as more than a plant in the first place in complexity alone. One could easily take "pro-abortion" to the extreme too and come uo with something just as ridiculous as "salad is murder". It's just a nice, non-sequiter to distract attention from the issue at hand.

How can you prove sentinence in a secular fashion? The primary pro-life argument is driven by certain faith-based beliefs. All federal and state laws are written with age beginning at birth. What precedence exists for unborn rights?

For the record, abortion disturbs me deeply and I'm merely presenting a counter argument, but I question where the values/doctrine line is drawn.

I guess it all does come down to faith in this issue. But, what makes it scientific proof that a human is a human only when the systems development is complete? Although it may be true that the system isn't complete until 24 weeks, to me it doesn't seem to imply that that means humanity begins. I mean, a child is completely dependant on it's mother for at least the first few years of life. To me, it's like saying that humanity doesn't begin until there is some sort of independence. I guess I just don't understand the issue of the systems development completely. As for sentience. I suppose by secular you mean scientific? I don't really know what you mean exactly but I will respond under my assumption. Sentience, i guess at it's very basic, means a "life's" ability to feel pain. And I am pretty sure that that ability exists many weeks prior to the 24th.

But the faith certainly does come in and is a big part of the pro-life argument. I won't argue with that. It all depends on what you believe anyway, on both sides of the argument. Whether or not you believe that there is something that separates the human experience from say a dog's or a cow's or a rose's. I do believe that there is more to human life than animal or plant life and I suppose that is where the faith aspect of it comes in for me. I believe it, but proving the existence of a spirit is probably impossible.

By secular I mean secular -> without conscious influence of religious doctrine

Yeah, you've spoken to it already, but animals are also sentient beings and then you must make a distinction between unborn human life and born animal life. That distinction also needs to be secular. I don't know what that distinction would sound like.

I'm not expert on this, but my understanding is that any human fetus that leaves the womb before week 24 isn't going to survive long-term no matter what you do. That's my definition of personhood. Infants require care, and premature births can make it with extra care. There's got to be a point, though, where it's always too early.

In one instance, yes. But there are also polls that show that the majority of Americans believe that god created the earth like it is today in seven days. The majority works both ways.

obviously.

right on.
there isn't a damn far left winger anywhere to be found in the Democratic party, that's the real problem. But Kerry has a plan, so once we find out what that is maybe we'll get a few votes.

true, but i'm always kind of doubtful about those polls and their phrasing. and even if people do believe that, it doesn't necessarily follow that they want it taught in science classes. i'm just making the point that the religious right is a minority. a very well organized, ruthless, influential, vocal minority, but still a minority--most people don't subscribe to such extreme views of religion and social policy.

Holy fuck, there is no way to properly handle the multiple subjects in this thread. And it does a disservice to each issue.

And that is why dems are floundering. As a liberal democrat, every one of my basic tenets is shot through with subtleties. If you call it wishy-washy or flip-floppish, you are simply a troglodyte who likes to squeeze things into boxes. It's called reflective, intelligent thought, and our country was founded on it.

However, this doesn't play well to a fearful nation dumbed-down on television and cozy black-and-white platitudes, both of which the Bush/Rove team masterfully manipulate.

The scandals and gross abuse of leadership that this administration exhibits are equally complex, and they don't stick with the vast majority of our country. We are a busy people with horrible educations about governmental affairs, and understanding campaign finance, lobbying, and the eroding of civil liberties is heady stuff. This stuff doesn't stick to Bush (as Iran Contra didn't stick to the Teflon President) for the same reasons dems fail: too complex, too much reading involved, doesn't fit nicely on a Bill O'Reilly graphic.

Now, coming on an intern: that's understandable.

So, the dems need a big, stupid gorilla of an issue to ride around on, and most of them are not wired to play that game. We need a big old Bubba who can press on basic American hot buttons. And the cons have already claimed xenophobia, bigotry, revenge, some mythical set of "family values," sexual fears, and good-old-American-shit-kickin'-manliness, and dumbed-down "straight-talkin'" as their own.

So, in order for dems to win, we have to get seriously stupid.

I guess that this argument doesn't prove anything to me because even if a "fetus" wouldn't make it no matter what you do before 24 weeks after 24 weeks, without this care or extra care if it's premature, it wouldn't live that long either. So varying levels of dependancy, for me, does not prove humanity.

As for secular...just to clarify...is it then anything that cannot be proven with the scientific method is not secular and therefore not true? -- I had to edit this sentence because I spelled true "troo" originally. That's just a disclaimer to let you know what kind of person you are discussing this topic with.

Then what can?


When I say secular, I use definition number 2. If it's secular, it's consistent with set precedent of church/state separation. It's one thing to explain how the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" applies to fetuses (feti?) and infants equally. Given the nature of the debate, biology is quite appropriate. It's another thing to say that abortion is murder because the soul enters the fetus at conception.

I am not able to answer that. I suppose that is where the faith comes in for me, like I said before. I can't wrap my head around the idea that because something is more dependant than the same thing a few months later that it is ok to abort it. I guess it's my gut feeling...so I know, before I get ridiculed, that that is not any means to prove anything. I only responded initially, I suppose, because the one statement just seemed so cold and disconnected. I am sorry for wasting your time. haha. Although, that was the most reasonable discussion I have had on the subject with an opposing point of view in a long time, so thanks. I just had questions, you know.



ok. I understand what you are saying. I guess to me it seems that it is almost as much faith to say that the soul enters the body after 24 weeks as it is to say it enters at conception--unless of course you are not meaning to imply that a soul ever enters. And it is something that cannot be proven secularly. Ok, so let me ask that. Do you believe in the soul and the spirit and the conciousness ideas that separate human life from plants and animals? Also, even if it were argued that the rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness aplly to feti(uses) then technically it could be called murder...right? If you are violating the right of life to a fetus then it is murder, in a technical sense...?? You wouldn't have to mention the soul because it is implied that it is a human...regardless of the soul, human life starts at conception, then, because humans can only have humans....therefore the right of life applies to it?

Please keep in mind: i think out loud so all of my questions are just that. questions. They are not subtle ways to try and prove you wrong or anything. I am genuinely interested in knowing your answers. I tend to make declarative statements when I think out loud and that makes people mad a lot. So, I am trying to ask, not state fact.

Wow, I hope to have time to read all of this thread and comment on Sensai's misinformation appropriately. I see people like this all the time on political blogs, fucking republicans (not, for the record, conservatives) pretending to be democrats and spewing a bunch of bullshit. Why he thought he should do this in a music forum is beyond me.

this happened a lot at cmj I think it was. Some people got really mad, which I think is the intent of the original poster, and some people replied rationally to no avail because the original poster would just say something more outrageous knowing it would piss the same, generally reasonable people off. Then there are the people who ignore it and post in the thread and those that ignore it completely and don't even read it.

I don't know who sensei is. Some say it's an old friend Tom Arico...but that may just be a comparison...

On a side note, i heard Christie Todd Whitman talking about what being a Replican meant to her . . . and it seemed like a great party. We should get her to flip sides and take over the Democrats.

she's a bad ass lady.

So, Tom Arico was a troublemaker from CMJ? I've seen him mentioned in another thread. I do love the blog terminology for people like him: Trolls.

yeah. there were two. Tom Arico and 4030 I think it was. One was worse than the other but I always thought they were the same person, or at least friends of each other in the real world. They seemed to start posting at the same time and they seemed to say similar things and they seemed to disappear at the same time. But, I have been an obner for a couple years now and barely have any posts under my belt...so I missed most of the drama with those characters....even over at cmj...

I don't necessarily disagree with your original points, but I do disagree that the majority is always right.

i totally agree (and i imagine most people on the board would, seeing as how we're a bunch of hipster-ass music elitists). a majority of people voted for bush in 2004 and i certainly don't think they were right. my point was just that uncommon opinions don't qualify as "common sense." it just pisses me off when elements of the republican machine try to act as though they have the market cornered on down-home, folksy wisdom when in reality they (sometimes) advocate rather extreme, unpopular policies.