@stuka:
No they lock it for slander and misbehaviour by people such as you and your rhetoric Jen.
Oh and get it right: Neo-nazi = nationalist = ethnic discrimination = you. I think I just applied an appropriate label to you. Wear it with pride! Or go back to your church and repent…. that is, if they allow repenting for such things.
Oh and by the way?
If Terry Schaivo isn’t political… therefor it was ethical and legal to end her life.
If abortion is not political… then quit crying to Capitol Hill about Pro-Lifer crap.
You know, you are the ONLY one engaging in slander and misbehavior. (And for that matter, bad spelling and grammar.)
Neo-Nazi = New National Socialist. Buy a German-English dictionary and check it out. If you support socialist programs, then you are a socialist. The Nazis were also socialists. You are just the new version of them. That’s fine. I don’t have a problem with it.
Also, I do not support Ethnic Discrimination. I am for the EQUAL AND UNMODERATED rights and privileges of ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS in this country. That there should be NO LAW in regards to race, religion, sexual orientation or creed. Just because I am applying principles that your friends and family and what you actually say probably are what you are does not mean I am supporting Ethnic Discrimination. It just means I am calling an apple an apple and not trying to call it a Banana.
Also, it is you are the one who is calling for the disenfranchisement of over 150 million Americans in the current primary season. Personally, I feel that is not in the spirit of the laws. I believe the laws were written to allow all Americans to vote in every election so that the will of the people will be heard. I find it funny, however, that you had no problem when Democrats flooded the early Republican primaries voting for John McCain en masse because he is the easiest of the candidates to beat - however, you have problems with Republicans voting for Hillary Clinton en masse.
Furthermore, you cannot possibly prove that a person who votes for Hillary does not do so because they honestly want to see her be President more then Obama. To try and claim otherwise is pure speculation AND slander.
Terri Schiavo was a medical situation. Had she been allowed to live, today her life could be incredibly better. It’s always been my assertion that the family who was fighting to keep her alive should have been allowed to do so provided that those who wanted to see her die were not financially penalized by allowing her to live. (Since they would not have been penalized, then there is no problem with letting her live. To force her death against the will of her family is MORALLY wrong, not POLITICALLY wrong.)
Abortion: The murder of people of any age is an ethical violation.
1) Relativism tells us that the morals of the individual cannot be judged and should be held inviolate by others. I rather believe the unborn child would say it is immoral for it to be killed. Unless you find the one suicidal one.
2) Divine Theory tells us that only God can dictate morals and that God has dictated that murder is illegal. Furthermore that only God can create the life in the womb and thus, only God can determine if that life will be brought to birth or die prematurely.
3) More serious: Kant:
Categorical Imperative 1:
No man should perform any act that one cannot will to be a universal law.
–I submit you cannot support the argument that ALL unborn children should be aborted. Thus, the abortion of even one child violates this test and thus, is not a perfect duty.
No man should perform any act that one cannot rationalize.
–You cannot rationalize the killing of all unborn children because that would result in no new generations and thus result in the end of the human race. Thus this is not an imperfect duty.
Categorical Imperative 2:
Man should always use each other as a means as well as an end.
–You cannot use the death of an unborn child as both a means and an end. It is only an end. You end the life. Thus, it is immoral because you are not using the unborn child at the same time the unborn child uses you, but rather you use the child only for your own benefit and not the benefit of others.
How about John Mills or Bentham?
Greatest Happiness without Cause of Harm:
You are harming the life of the unborn! Sure, you get a little happiness for the now not pregnant mother. Maybe a smidgen of happiness from the Grandmother or Great Grandmother to be. But that comes at the cause of doing harm. Furthermore, you are causing irreparable heinous harm to the life in the womb.
Finally, how about Common Sense?
“Every person killed {in the womb} could be an artist, a writer, a doctor, or a singer - someone who could have gone on to enrich the world in a thousand incalculable ways.” --German Fighter Ace: Horst Rippert, Messerschmidt Pilot, in reference to the lives lost in the second war.
How many of our greatest lives would have been lost for the convenience of a woman who made a bad decision in her life?
Now, this is NOT a political topic. It’s an ethical one.
It seems pretty obvious, at least to me, that you’d rather engage in the art of slander and name calling then to take a moral stance on a topic and say “This is what I am, this is what I support.” I, and others, have done so repeatedly.
It’s called fortitude of character. If you don’t have it, that’s fine. However, don’t go on a smear campaign against those who do because we frighten you and shake your rose tinted world allowing some of reality to seep in around the rose sun-glasses you are wearing. If it bothers you that much, perhaps you need to stop reading these pages and go back to only playing Axis and Allies where your reality can be whatever you want it to be.
