Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Black Abortions Matter

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 2:13 PM
That's a question that has yet to be answered. Some argue it's at conception. Some argue it's at the detection of a heartbeat. Some argue it's the emergence of brain activity. Some argue (as in Jewish tradition) that it's when the fetus first breathes on its own. There is currently no way to determine which is correct and I don't think Mike Adam is helping the debate by making lofty assumptions.
In response to:

Black Abortions Matter

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 2:11 PM
It's not plain and simple. If it were, it wouldn't be an issue by default. Abortion has been around in some form or another for centuries. It was arguably far more egregious in the past than it is today. Ignoring its complexities only leads to overly simplistic and overly wrong decisions.
In response to:

Black Abortions Matter

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 9:11 AM
What happened with Micahel Brown is not a fair comparison to the abortion debate. First and foremost, there's no argument over the personhood of Michael Brown. He was a person and was recognized as such at every level. Nobody doubts that as a person, he's capable of functional thought and suffering. That's why his death was so egregious. With abortion, it's not as clear. During certain stages of gestation, a fetus cannot suffer or think on a discernible level. And most abortions, according to the latest research, occurs in this stage. So it is not at all like Michael Brown. And if abortion is going to be treated the same way as the Michael Brown issue, then miscarriages should also be treated as involuntary manslaughter by default. It's a logically inconsistent message that only focuses on a context that gives men like Mike Adams an excuse to champion their conservative family values message. And if men like him need an excuse like this, then it's a message that doesn't have much merit.
So Nixon surrendered the China and that was a bad thing for America? It's not like he's making Americans speak Spanish now. He's ending a policy that hasn't worked for 50 years. If you're conservative and you favor things like captialism and free trade, why wouldn't you be for this? It opens up new markets. It creates new customers. It fosters new allies. It's a win for so many people. It's not perfect. The Cuban government is still very repressive, but it's an amateur compared to the governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China.
So killing Bin Laden didn't count? I don't agree with a lot of things Obama has done, but give the man at least some credit. He's a human being. Not a monster.
The US has a very bad track record at changing governments. Why would we want to try to change Cuba at this point? There's really no benefit for them to have nuclear missiles at this point. And by trading with Cuba, they have even less incentive to do something like that because economics tends to trump aggression. By all accounts, this policy change is a win-win for everybody.
After 50 years of maintaining a failed policy that has outlived almost everybody involved, this couldn't have comes ooner. The Cuban embargo has done absolutely nothing of merit. All it does is add to the suffering of the Cuban people and it gives the Cuban government a perfect scapegoat. And it's not like Cuba's human rights record is as bad as some countries we trade with. Saudi Arabia regularly beheads people and ruthlessly persecutes minorities. Yet we trade with them regularly. The Cold War is over. And this policy needs to catch up with the times. I know there will be those who use this as an excuse to hate Obama even more. There's nothing he can do to change those attitudes. But what was the alternative? More sanctions after they had failed for 50 years? That's simply not reasonable.
I agree that it would've fall under the perview of the 10th Amendment at one point, but even that wouldn't work at this point because of how much the government has meddled in marriage. The problem is that marriage has federal benefits as well as state benefits. And because of the supremacy clause in the Constitution, I don't think the 10th Amendment is sufficient here. I don't agree with the government's involvement in marriage to begin with, but as soon as it started conferring benefits, it no longer became a state issue.
Personal attacks and insults don't make my points any less valid.
In response to:

Christophobes March On

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 10:47 AM
I do love liberty. I do love freedom. That's why I roll my eyes at arguments made by David Limbaugh. There is a real freedom issue here with respect to anti-discrimination laws. Yet he chooses to complain about anti-Christian discrimination. And so long as Christianity remains the dominant religion of America and the western world, his arguments will continue to be asinine.
In response to:

Christophobes March On

HeraldOfGalactus Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 9:47 AM
Every time I hear men like David Limbaugh talk about discrimination against Christianity, I cringe because I know it's going to be framed in the context of absurdity. What men like Limbaugh and many Christians like him fail to understand is that when Christians complain about discrimination, they come off as Donald Trump would if he were to complain about not getting welfare checks. Christians are still the majority in this country. They exercise a huge amount of influence and political power. Most politicians are Christian. Most judges and leaders are Christian. Nearly every level of power is dominated by Christians. Yet they still claim discrimination? This is yet another reason why young people are turning away from religion entirely. Now without having read the book that this man published, it's difficult to judge why it warranted suspending him. But if it was inflammatory, hate-filled, and full of false information like the information propogated by the Family Research Council, then there are grounds for suspension. States that have anti-discrimination laws can do this. Now I think it's worth arguing the merits of these anti-discrimination laws. I think it could be argued that they infringe on free speech and free association. However, this isn't the argument Limbaugh makes. He just whines about discrimination and ignores anything of actual substance. And so long as men like him keep doing this, Christianity will become less and less relevant because more people will associate it with intolerance and bigotry. And a religion like Christianity doesn't deserve that.
Previous 11 - 20 Next