| Author |
|
Valerie Finnigan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 March 2006
Posts: 838
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 8:36am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
I was just using the Catholic vote as an example with which I am quite familiar of a group that pretty consistently has had to hold its collective nose while voting and hope that the lesser of two evils is elected.
I vote because it's stupid to complain about problems within the government if I haven't at least tried to do something about them.
As for Catholic values or what have you, it completely defeats the purpose of voting in a democratic republic if we check our interests or our values at the polling place.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wayde Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 October 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3115
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 9:30am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
I think I understand your statement a little better, Valerie. Thank you.
It often strikes me as odd though, when religious values/standards/concepts, which are followed voluntarily by the members of the group in question, are promoted on the political arena, where those values and standards will be enforced by rule of law, whether they are values you hold personally or not.
"Catholic values" are not necessarily bad values, in and of themselves, and they are obviously important to Catholics. But to non-Catholics, to have Catholic values become the law of the land (even if those values contradict the values they follow in their own beliefs) seems somehow unfair.
To be clear, I feel the same way about generic "religious values", not just Catholic-specific beliefs and standards. I guess the question is, if a nation is predominantly Christian, and the laws governing that nation are Christian-centric laws, which would be preferable to the majority of the citizenry, at what point has the democracy become a theocracy? Are Islamic nations, with overwhelming Muslim majorities, theocracies, dictatorships, or stalled democracies where the will of the people is followed concerning the laws of the land, but not followed concerning the nomination of leaders?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4944
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 10:22am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
So Valerie,what kind of candidate is the dream Catholic candidate? What would you want him do do?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Greg Reeves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 February 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1396
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 11:04am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| The choice is either to control it so the practice does not become egregious, or criminalize it and drive it underground, where it will certainly take on its most tragic, exploitive forms. |
|
|
I say this being a democrat, and at the risk of starting another abortion debate, but that choice that you outline, Joe, sounds like a cop-out because of what some people will unlawfully choose to do. If we're going to be a morally just nation, we'll have to make some tough decisions despite the consequences. Legalize heroin so that users can get a purer, lab-controlled batch? Abortion is either right or wrong, and what people will be "forced" to do if it's made illegal is irrelevant. Perhaps if we make birth control free (or mandatory) we can eliminate the need to terminate "mistakes".
QUOTE:
| Is it necessary that Catholic values specifically must be addressed? |
|
|
I can tell you that my wife, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law all "cannot" vote Democrat because their conscience doesn't allow them to support abortion rights. I respect that (feeling the same about abortion) but I don't think it's enough to sway my vote that way. Furthermore, there have been many Republican presidents in the meantime, that have not overturned the legality of abortion. The president can't do everything!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Valerie Finnigan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 27 March 2006
Posts: 838
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 11:15am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Not to sound nitpicky, but theocracy is direct rule by a deity. Ecclesiocracy is rule by religion.
The beauty of a democratic republic is that people of different value systems also get their say. If, however, I have to take their values in account more than my own when I vote in the name of "fairness," that would interfere with my right to my own say in how things are run.
You aren't doing democracy a favor by voting for anything or anyone other than what one person- you- think is best. As for other people's values- that's why they have the right to vote, too.
And that means that sometimes- or oftentimes as the case is- we have to put up with politicians and policies we oppose or even find harmful, most likely because we find up and moving to another country still a worse option. I find that fair enough. You put up with "Christian values." I put up with Obama. (And you have no idea how badly I did not want him to win.)
On to other things. Neil, don't assume that the dream Catholic politician would be a man. But I personally think (and I'm not speaking for the entire Church here, but I think I might have it pretty well in a nutshell) that a candidate who is consistently pro-life (meaning against unjust war, the overuse of the death penalty, treating the sick, aged, and disabled like burdens, vivisection of human embryos- especially when adult stem cell research shows more promise, and the oppressive economic and social conditions that motivate 98% of all abortions), pro-labor, pro-education, perhaps in favor of tightening up a few marriage regs (like banning impulsive weddings and no-fault divorce), and has the spine to come right out and say, "This is where I stand and what I'll do," rather than "I take it as a matter of faith that abortion/the death penalty/war/unliveable wages/the disintegration of families/price gouging for medical services/educational failure/pollution is a bad thing, but feel it's not my place to force my beliefs on others who feel differently," would get my support.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jason Czeskleba
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Posts: 4639
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 12:28pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Slight tangent here; the discussion of abortion has got me thinking about something I've never understood. McCain's position (as well as that of many others) is that abortion should not be allowed except in cases in which the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. That position makes absolutely no sense to me, and I was seriously wondering if someone can explain it to me.
The central debate about the issue is "when does life begin." If life begins at conception then abortion constitutes killing a life and it is wrong under any circumstances. So what is the rationale for the rape and incest exceptions? Killing a baby is wrong, but if the baby is the product of rape or incest then killing it is okay? Fetuses conceived via rape or incest are not alive but fetuses conceived every other way are? That is ridiculous.
The only distinction I can think of is that when a baby is conceived by rape or incest it is not the mother's fault but in every other instance it is the mother's "fault." Hence the rape and incest exception seems nothing more than a moralistic judgment of and punishment for the mothers' actions and behavior.
If that's the case, supporting rape/incest exceptions for abortion seems pretty despicable. I can respect the rationale of someone who is totally against abortion under any circumstances, but making exceptions based on external circumstances makes no sense. Or am I missing something here?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14920
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 12:41pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
The central debate about the issue is "when does life begin."
---
Well, no. A fertilized egg or a fetus is definitely alive. The debate is whether it is a person.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Al Cook
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 21 December 2004
Posts: 12734
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 12:58pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I think the real problem with the abortion debate is this:
It is never phrased as "Is abortion an acceptable means of birth control?"
That it is otherwise a both a personal right and sometimes a matter of
medical, ethical or emotional necessity seems unassailable.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Wayde Murray
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 October 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3115
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 1:26pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Valerie wrote:
Not to sound nitpicky, but theocracy is direct rule by a deity. Ecclesiocracy is rule by religion.
Correction noted, with thanks.
Valerie also wrote:
The beauty of a democratic republic is that people of different value systems also get their say. If, however, I have to take their values in account more than my own when I vote in the name of "fairness," that would interfere with my right to my own say in how things are run.
You misunderstood me, perhaps. The question isn't whether you should have to take the feelings or beliefs of others into account when casting your vote in the name of "fairness" (you don't, obviously), but rather if being forced to observe Christian beliefs enacted under a legal framework is fair to non-Christians whose own beliefs are not similarly enforced as law. A non-Christian politician running for office in North America on a platform of enshrining his religious beliefs into law isn't going to win, but a Christian politician doing exactly that will win, will serve, and will enact legislation that will run counter to the core beliefs of many of his non-Christian constituents. That is the lack of "fairness" that I am speaking of. The only way to guarantee fairness is to remove all religious-based arguments from laws: if you want stores to close on Sunday to suit Catholics, but aren't in favor of closing stores on Saturday to suit Seventh Day Adventists, you've got to find a reason for the closure independant of any and all religions. Arguments against abortion (for example) are fine, as long as they are not religious arguments.
If lawmakers are simply going to quote religious higher authority then you are never going to have a world that can come to agreement on many basic human rights issues because the higher authorities are far from unanimous on those issues. Western society can claim all people are equal, but many cultures do not see women as inherently equal to men or children as equal to adults. How do you open a dialog with those people when the core values are so different, and the tenets of both religions insist they are correct and the other is wrong?
edit to add: I'm Canadian, by the way. I get to "put up with Obama" the same way I got to put up with Bush. I just didn't get to vote for or against either of them. Similarly I get to "put up with Christian values" that I may find quaint, or silly, or harmful, or whatever, even when my countrymen go to war to protect those values from conflicting values that I may also find quaint, or silly or harmful. "Putting up with" things wasn't what I was talking about, though. I was talking about fairness.
Edited by Wayde Murray on 15 November 2008 at 1:34pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Greg Reeves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 06 February 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1396
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 1:28pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Jason, your post was very insightful, and I agree completely that people cannot really justify abortion in most cases but not in the few that result from rape and incest. It just becomes tougher to enforce a law when the means of becoming pregnant was not with the woman's consent. I think the only, and absolutely only rationale for abortion is an inarguable threat to the mother's life due to development outside the uterus or some other potentially fatal condition. In this way it becomes a medical procedure to save a woman's life. As much as I wouldn't want to be the one to tell an impregnated rape victim that she cannot have an abortion (if it were made illegal), it's true that the developing fetus should still have the right to life just as any wanted pregnancy's fetus.
Edited by Greg Reeves on 15 November 2008 at 1:29pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Hagerman
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 April 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 18353
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 1:42pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
As long as a baby is inside a woman's body she should retain the right to have it removed, for whatever reason, whenever she wants. Anything else becomes a legal nightmare: "SURE it was a miscarriage." "Hi doc. Um, I was raped?" "If you make me have this baby I'll kill myself, therefore you must NOT make me have this baby to preserve the life of the mother!"
The key to preventing abortions is preventing unwanted pregnancies. The key to THAT? No clue.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike O'Brien
Byrne Robotics Member
Official JB Historian
Joined: 18 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10927
|
| Posted: 15 November 2008 at 2:16pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Was this one posted? The 2008 Wasaaap update?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndzWVnD7-vQ
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
