Looks like Frankies blog about Magpies blog has now been closed. Oh the irony.
In any case, I'm curious to know why these blogs would be closed? Sure they might be getting a bit long winded and repetitive, but at the very least couldn't the moderator closing the blogs at least post why they are closing them?
Replies
"Abortion as a survival choice"
Just read that out loud to yourself Tad.
If you don't want to have children, that's fine. There are plenty of forms of contraception available, and there is good old fashioned abstinence, and adoption is all too readily available. They are way more people wanting to adopt than there are potential adoptable children.
This is the problem. The world today wants to have its cake and eat it as well. No society can function properly if you divorce responsibility & virtue from rights. It just leads to chaos.
You want to make individual decisions, then you can't rely on collective responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. You can't on the one hand say, it is my right to have sex with whomever I want, and then when you fall pregnant turn to society and say, "Now help me deal with the consequences of that decision."
You can try and confuse the debate with emotional arguments like you just did all you want, but in the end no matter how you slice it, it is an unjust, unwarranted, intentional taking of an innocent life.
How any person can say that is OK is utterly beyond me.
It just does my head in.
"Genocide is a term used to describe violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group with the intent to destroy the entire group".
You can use it emotivly if you want, but your apply it in this situation is wrong.
"But again the flaw with your argument is that it is not the individuals responsibility, but the collective's responsibility".
So if the individual choses to take a responsible action and not bring a child into an undesirable situation, why should the collective feel they have the responsibility to tell the individual what to do?
"What happened to having self control ?"
Ask all the kiddy fiddler priests and pastors.
You really think all those good Catholics were knocking out 12 plus kids back in the day because they were trying to populate the earth with gods children. Of course not, they were fucking because they could and they enjoyed it! Self control pffffft.
The religious barb in my last post wasn't intentional, I forgot your a man of faith. I agree that many religious organizations do excellent work with those less fortunate.
But there's no way way those Bedouin nomads kicking round the sands in the middle east 2000+ yrs ago making up these rules and morals could have forseen we would have the ability to give women control over their reproductive lives.
Plus for all the " life is sacred " talk the old testament is chockers full of smiting and smoting of the Israelites enemys. Fuck ol' Yahweh himself apparently drowned EVERYONE in Noahs flood. Now thats a genocide! Every first born son of the Egyptians with Moses, taking out Sodom because everyone that lived there was shithouse..... yep lots of respect for the sanctity of life there....
Jesus seemed like a cool dude though, nothing like his old man....:)
Genocide is the killing of a generation of people. You can argue semantics if you want, it doesn't change the truth. I'm not using it emotively, i'm using it factually. Last year, 1.8 million babies were aborted in the US alone. That is the killing of a generation. Period.
So if the individual choses to take a responsible action and not bring a child into an undesirable situation, why should the collective feel they have the responsibility to tell the individual what to do?
Firstly, your argument is perjorative becuase it assumes that choosing not to bring an unborn child into the world is being responsible, and that is rubbish. Not wanting to bring a child into an undesirable situation is fine, so remove yourself & the child from said undesirable situation, or failing that, put the child out for adoption. Killing the child is not the answer and it is the very opposite of being responsible.
As for paedophiles, I absolutely agree, they should face the full weight of the law if found guilty. But just because they don't have self control doesn't excuse you or I from that responsibility. Besides, you showing self control is a sign of respect towards women.
I never suggested Catholics who had big families were doing it out of some altruistic notion. Of course they enjoyed sex, God intended us to enjoy sex within the bounds of marriage between one man & one woman. However, He also gave us free will to make our own choices, but with every choice comes with it consequences and responsibility.
You want to enjoy sex outside the parameters that God set down for us, then fine, you have the right to do that. But you don't have the right to vacate the consequences of those decisions. When you have sex with someone, whether you consciously do it or not, you are committing an act of procreation. It may not be your intent or desire, but you are giving consent for your genetic material to take part in the creation of another life. It is that simple. If you don't want a child, don't have sex.
They weren't Bedouins, they were citizens of Rome, just like we are citizens of Australia now. They were small businessmen & women, and they didn't "make up rules & morals", they were written by man but inspired by God. You don't think women of the time didn't understand what their menstrual cycles meant ?
Yes all life is sacred, but like now, Israel had enemies. That doesn't mean that God didn't want Israel to defend herself from those that would destroy her. Of course He did. Just as He directs us to defend ourselves. If a stranger has entered your home and is intent on causing harm to your family, then God gives you every right to take whatever steps you need to to protect your family.
Life is sacred, but when someone else is intent on taking another person's life, their life becomes forfeit. To equaqte abortion to defending your family is just stupid in the extreme.
What crime has an unborn child committed ?
Be conceived ? How dare it.
God created all life in existence, He gave us very clear instructions in how He wanted us to live. We owe our existence to Him. Our very lives are in his hands. We spat His gift to us in His face, He had every reason to end the Universe right there and then. The fact that we still exist is testimony to His Perfect Love for us. I sure as hell wouldn't have put with us for 6,000 years.
BTW, Jesus & "His old man" are one and the same. Father, Son & the Holy Spirit. One God, three persons.
I watched it Tad.
But here's the problem with that. It implies, as I understood it, that there is no absolute external truth. Truth is what you perceive it to be. The problem is that perceptions shift, they are flimsy at best.
So ....
If that's the case, then life has no meaning.
And if that's the case, then life has no value.
And if that's the case, then life has no purpose.
So if life is to have purpose, it must have value.
And if it is to have value, it must have meaning.
And if it is to have meaning, it must be intentional.
And if it is to be intentional, then it has to be designed.
And if it has been designed, there must be a designer.
And if there is a designer, there must be a reason for the design.
And if there is a reason for the design, that reason will be recorded somewhere for us to seek out.
And if there is such a recording, by it's very nature it must be absolute truth.
And it is only in absolute truth that we find purpose.
Brett, Google Raphael Lemkin and read up on the UN conventions on genocide. It's a legal term with specific applications and connotations.
"Of course they enjoyed sex, God intended us to enjoy sex within the bounds of marriage between one man & one woman."
That's not what the Catholics were taught. They were taught that it was only for procreation and that to enjoy it was a sin. So whose interpretation is right?
King Solomon, one of Jesus supposed genealogical relatives was famous for his harem!
"According to I Kings 11, Solomon had hundreds of wives and hundreds of concubines. His harem consisted of approximately 700 wives and 300 concubines. The round numbers listed in the passage from I Kings 11 is a clue to the fact that it is an approximation".
"Yes all life is sacred, but like now, Israel had enemies. That doesn't mean that God didn't want Israel to defend herself from those that would destroy her.
When the entire population of the planet was supposedly drowned in a flood, who was being defended? Just Noah? Sounds to me like Yahweh is the aggressor here. Everyone else on the planet needed protection from him.
You think a woman having an abortion is bad, she terminates a potential life, ye old lord supposedly killed EVERYONE! An he's the moral compass?
Here, have some free will, wait your not living how I want you to, I know, I'll kill you all and start again.
Here have some free will, wait your not living how I want you to, I know I'll send myself in the form of my own son to die for your sins.
Here, have some free will, I've already died for your sins, but you still have to use the free will I gave you the way I want you to otherwise your going to hell to live in anguish for eternity because I love you.......honestly......
Brett, I never said a child of rape or incest would end up unhappy (even if ended up looking like a member of Wrong Turn's family of incestual-cannibals).
So, if you had your way, would you criminalise & stop a 12 year old who wanted an abortion, because she was incestually raped-forced into pregnancy - even if it risked her life?
Yer I don't mind his messages, he's a very reasonable thinker, I just have a bit of an issue with the "look how smart I am" vibe he gives off.
Yes, he is an intellectual, and speaks as such. I have no issue with that, he speaks in the intellectual world and therefore speaks accordingly. There's no point a total bogan with missing teeth trying to speak to educated intellectuals, would get nowhere.
You don't walk up to the Queen and say "How's it hanging Lizzie my luv ?", that would be disrespectful to the monarchy, whether you agree with it as an institution or not. You would say " Nice to meet you Your Majesty".
First rule of public speaking, know your audience.
That said, I'm sure if required he could tone down his conversational style to suit a different type of audience.
Wasn't it Einstein who said " If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it" or similar?
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
21
-
22
of 31 Next