Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Welcome to Dubya's emerging theocracy

musclebrains

New member
From the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/09/weekinreview/09GOOD.html

February 9, 2003
A President Puts His Faith in Providence
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN


Over the last two weeks, President George W. Bush has delivered several speeches laced with references to his religious beliefs.

In the State of the Union address, he told Americans preparing for war with Iraq to put their confidence in "the loving God behind all of life, and all of history." And at a memorial service for the Columbia astronauts, he told the grieving families to seek comfort in the afterlife, saying, "In God's own time, we can pray that the day of your reunion will come."

Of course, presidents from George Washington on have invoked God's name to protect the nation in times of war and to comfort it in times of tragedy. And when, in a 1999 presidential debate, Mr. Bush said Christ was his favorite philosopher, "because he changed my heart," some saw it as a blatant bid for the evangelical vote.

But today, with that constituency sewn up, the president continues to talk and lead like a preacher. For him faith is far more than an oratorical set piece, say friends, advisers and some independent presidential analysts. Indeed, he has often said that what led him to stop drinking, and to turn his life around, was a spiritual awakening that began about 17 years ago, when he was 39.

The president's faith in faith is readily apparent not only in his speeches, but in his social policies and also in his determination to vanquish Saddam Hussein.

"I've seen presidents in the past who wear religion on their sleeve as a political gesture, but that's not what we're seeing here," said David R. Gergen, who worked in the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton administrations. "He has made it clear he feels that Providence intervened to change his life, and now he is somehow an instrument of Providence."

As the president told a group of religious leaders gathered for the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last Thursday: "Events aren't moved by blind change and chance. Behind all of life and all of history, there's a dedication and purpose, set by the hand of a just and faithful God."

Many of his most eloquent religious references have been shaped by Michael Gerson, a policy adviser to the president and his main speechwriter. Mr. Gerson majored in theology at Wheaton College, worked as a journalist and was once a ghostwriter for Charles W. Colson, the Watergate felon who has become a major evangelical leader.

In the State of the Union speech, Mr. Gerson alluded to a popular evangelical hymn in the line, "There's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." (The hymn speaks of the "wonder-working power in the blood of the lamb.") He also alluded to Catholic theology when he described fighting AIDS in Africa as "a work of mercy" — a reference to the "seven corporal works of mercy."

Mr. Gerson said in an interview that using religious language was not an attempt to deliver a coded message to believers.

"It's not code, it's our culture," he said. "It's one of the ways you communicate with rhetoric. It is impossible to imagine the American experiment without the moral vision of reform that comes from faith, and that's true in abolition, in the fight against segregation and for child labor laws or reform of mental hospitals."

But Mr. Bush's speeches intentionally avoided mentioning Jesus or Christ, referring to a higher power as God, the Almighty, Providence or the Creator.

"I think there is a responsibility for public officials to maintain a principled pluralism that respects the important role of faith, but does not favor any sectarian creed," Mr. Gerson said.

On social issues, the president has emphasized his "faith-based initiative," unveiled in the first month of his presidency. The idea is to give government money to churches and religious institutions to run programs for the poor, jobless, homeless and addicted. So strong is his commitment to this approach that when Mr. Bush encountered significant Congressional opposition, on constitutional grounds, last December he used executive orders to put many of his ideas into operation.

Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, said in an interview that the president is personally invested in the initiative "because of his own history of drinking, where faith did result in a change in him."

PRESIDENT Bush, by denomination a Methodist, is not the first "born again" president in modern history. That distinction belongs to Jimmy Carter, who was raised a Southern Baptist. But Mr. Carter largely kept his personal church beliefs and affairs of state separate.

Mr. Bush may be more assertive about his faith because he has the zeal of the convert, speculated William J. Bennett, a leading conservative. The president's conversion experience, Mr. Bennett said, seems to have marked a turning point in his life. "This was a big conversion to him, so it may continue to matter more," Mr. Bennett said. "When he speaks he's not putting something on, he's letting something out. He turns to the language of faith naturally without thinking as to whether it would be a good idea or not."

In recent weeks, there has been growing debate over whether the president's use of faith has gone too far.

To the ears of many Americans, especially the vast number who say they are "born again," the president's words are heroic. "He's doing a very admirable, very clear and profound job of showing faith to be a part of life," said the Rev. Dr. Anthony T. Evans, pastor of Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship Church in Dallas, who has prayed with the president.

But some ministers and theologians object to the president's references to God, and to good and evil, in speeches justifying war with Iraq.

"He has brought God in in handcuffs," said the Rev. James A. Forbes Jr., the liberal senior pastor of Riverside Church in New York. "This war is not coming from the council of heaven, it is coming from a council on earth that has not checked with God about their deeper motivations."

Elaine Pagels, a professor of religion at Princeton University, said she had no interest in whether the president's religious language is genuine or politically manipulative.

"What interests me is the effect," she said. "Religious language can be unifying. It can also be enormously divisive and dangerous. If there is an axis of evil, that obviously places him in the axis of good, and also means that anyone who disagrees with the policies he is advocating is placed on the other side."
 
I would say that i believe firmly in antidisestablishmentarianism.... but... Truthfully, all i want is the eradication of the church and a near-anarchist state. i could give a fuck if the two are divided or unified when they come tumbling down.
 
I forgot this really cool picture that ran with the article. Dubya and his fave philosopher.

good184.jpg
 
musclebrains said:
I forgot this really cool picture that ran with the article. Dubya and his fave philosopher.

good184.jpg

don't worry. jesus will save you. btw. i fucked a girl in the ass last night. it fucking ruled. i have not done that in a while. i think i am going to be gay now.
 
A crusade against the muslims is just what we need right now. Hopefully we can finish the job this time. Bush is religious but that doesnt make the country a theocracy. However muslim nations are theocracies and you seem to care more about them than you do America.
 
MortyJackson said:
A crusade against the muslims is just what we need right now. Hopefully we can finish the job this time. Bush is religious but that doesnt make the country a theocracy. However muslim nations are theocracies and you seem to care more about them than you do America.

Really? How do you figure that?
 
Even as a Bush supporter, I am also quite concerned with his religious overzealousness.

Prime example is his appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager is a practicing Ob/Gyn who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." His record on women's health issues is appalling.
In short, Dubya's appointment of Hager shows that he will go to any and all lengths to promote and entrench his religious causes (anti-abortion in this particular case).

Very, very concerning stuff.

But he seems to like the Jews, so I'm ok with him. :)
 
He has been even handed with respect to all religions

I think it is a really great thing that this president has such a strong religious streak in him, he is not beating anyone over the head telling them to convert to Christianity.

I would pose the question to the critics why does his faith disturb you so? As an American its part of your culture and heritage to be tolerant. So often in recent history tolerance for so many different things from race, religion, to culture has been so heavily stressed all through the media and therefore also in the collective psyche most Americans with a TV.

Why the double standard? Bush's religious aspect as a by product give him a strong sense of morality, and a by product of that strong morality is a strong spine. A strong spine is essential for an effective leader, especially in tumultous times.

I applaud him for letting his personality and character show, what a great change from his predecessor who governed by opinion poll, and whose position on any issue could be as fickle as the whim of the populace on any given day, there is a place for that type of representation, its called the House of Representatives, the White House is for LEADERS.
 
thebabydoc said:
Even as a Bush supporter, I am also quite concerned with his religious overzealousness.

Prime example is his appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager is a practicing Ob/Gyn who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." His record on women's health issues is appalling.
In short, Dubya's appointment of Hager shows that he will go to any and all lengths to promote and entrench his religious causes (anti-abortion in this particular case).

Very, very concerning stuff.

But he seems to like the Jews, so I'm ok with him. :)

naw homes... get it straight... bush does not like the jews. the jews control him, along with the rest of washington, hollywood, and every major publication. DUH!
 
So is this a "Bash Bush" thread or a "Butt Sex" thread?

At any rate, Bush was open about his religious convictions during the election, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised at this. He was still elected and will clearly be re-elected.
 
thebabydoc said:
Even as a Bush supporter, I am also quite concerned with his religious overzealousness.

Prime example is his appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager is a practicing Ob/Gyn who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." His record on women's health issues is appalling.
In short, Dubya's appointment of Hager shows that he will go to any and all lengths to promote and entrench his religious causes (anti-abortion in this particular case).

Very, very concerning stuff.

But he seems to like the Jews, so I'm ok with him. :)

He likes Israelis. I'm not sure he likes Jews.

I read about Hager's religious background yesterday. An appalling example of the way Dubya is using the state to advance religious agendas. Don't forget that Ashcroft, who leads prayer meetings in the White House, tried to suspend euthanasia laws in states that have legalized it.
 
ttlpkg said:
So is this a "Bash Bush" thread or a "Butt Sex" thread?

At any rate, Bush was open about his religious convictions during the election, so I don't see why anyone would be surprised at this. He was still elected and will clearly be re-elected.

Jimmy Carter was also religious but he did not install fundamentalists in positions of government authority. The disturbing thing is not his convictions but his transgression of the doctrine of the separation of state and church.
 
thebabydoc said:
Even as a Bush supporter, I am also quite concerned with his religious overzealousness.

Prime example is his appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager is a practicing Ob/Gyn who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." His record on women's health issues is appalling.
In short, Dubya's appointment of Hager shows that he will go to any and all lengths to promote and entrench his religious causes (anti-abortion in this particular case).

Very, very concerning stuff.

But he seems to like the Jews, so I'm ok with him. :)

I've seen all the controversy on this. What you'v forgotten to do is exactly what the liberals who brought the story to the surface forgot to do - mention that this doctor is a FOREMOST expert in his field.

Not that I'm disagreeing with you that choosing Hager isn't controversial, I just wish people would present all the facts, not just the ones to support their viewpoint.

here are some excerpts:

1)Dr. Hager has a special interest and expertise in Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics & Gynecology, and has gained national and international recognition for his work in this area. He was President of Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology from 1996-1998. He was also named as one of the "Best Doctors in America" in both 1994 and 1996.

2)The Time piece mentions in its lead that Hager is the author of a book called As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now. It also mentions that he wrote a book with his wife called Stress and the Woman's Body, "which puts 'an emphasis on the restorative power of Jesus Christ in one's life.'" True. True. Of course, they don't mention any of his non-religion-focused books or his peer-reviewed articles. No mention, for instance, of the two textbooks he's edited, both published by well-regarded medical publishers (Infection Protocols for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Economics, 1992, and Protocols for Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Blackwell Science, 1999), or other mainstream, standard medical textbooks he's written for. No consideration of his work that has been published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, or the Journal of the American Medical Association.

And let's not forget that he is one of 11 doctors that sits on this panel, and he really has no more power than any of the rest of them.

There is tons more if the facts actually interest you at all.
 
Last edited:
Irony....

Ironmako said:
....Why the double standard? Bush's religious aspect as a by product give him a strong sense of morality, and a by product of that strong morality is a strong spine. A strong spine is essential for an effective leader, especially in tumultous times....
What a wonderful double standard America has.

Religious freedom....so long as you supress yourself.

As a Christian, we knew (as a group) that Bush wasn't "one of us" per se. I believe his faith in God and Jesus is sincere, but if he really was "one of us," he'd never have made it to the White House. The powerbrokers of this world do not like Christians or really any other religion. So, Bush had to sell out on many principles to get the support of those who make winning the election possible. There's just too much a devout Christian will not do that bans them from politics as it's now practiced.

What also bothers me is while I see the concern of a religious zealot being a nation's leader, look what the great Atheists of history have done....Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao.... Not a stunning agrument for keeping religious beliefs completely out of politics.
 
kingjohn said:
Wow.....I can't even imagine how the Jew York Times could write something like that. God forbid someone isnt a jew but has a faith of their own. You know a "stein" had to write it.

Yeah, that must explain it. Bush is sooooooooo anti-Israel.
 
musclebrains said:
Oh? She enjoyed it so much, you now want to take it up the ass youself? Kewl.



You know.....I have wondered how many gay men started out by banging the g/f in the back door. I'll bet a large percentage.
 
Of course, presidents from George Washington on have invoked God's name to protect the nation in times of war and to comfort it in times of tragedy. And when, in a 1999 presidential debate, Mr. Bush said Christ was his favorite philosopher, "because he changed my heart," some saw it as a blatant bid for the evangelical vote.

This paragraph is hilarious. It tries to make the assertion that somehow Bush is unique in his expression of his religion, and that former presidents only used the reference of religion for political reasons.

I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation and wealth, publicly to declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your evidence in this way. [2]

James Madison

Not to mention that, L. Ron Hubbard forbid, Bush was pandering to Christian voters. We all know that politicians never cater to special interests. Democrats never suck up to minorities and perpetuate falsities concerning the evil white male.

The author basically is stating that Christians are not to voice their opinions or cast their vote, because we know that they are all secretly yearning for an oppressive theocracy. Only blacks, gays, and feminists have the moral interests of the nation.
 
thebabydoc said:
Even as a Bush supporter, I am also quite concerned with his religious overzealousness.

Prime example is his appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to head up the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Dr. Hager is a practicing Ob/Gyn who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women. He is the author of "As Jesus Cared for Women: Restoring Women Then and Now." His record on women's health issues is appalling.
In short, Dubya's appointment of Hager shows that he will go to any and all lengths to promote and entrench his religious causes (anti-abortion in this particular case).


Why is it horrible that a physician is anti-abortion. Do you think that all scientists espouse the notion that abortion on demand is a "right"? Do you also believe that all anti-abortionists are basing their dissent on religious convictions?
 
musclebrains said:

I read about Hager's religious background yesterday. An appalling example of the way Dubya is using the state to advance religious agendas. Don't forget that Ashcroft, who leads prayer meetings in the White House, tried to suspend euthanasia laws in states that have legalized it.

Liberals are pathetic in their ability to think. Do you believe that one who is against euthanasia must be a religious zealot? Do you think that possibly there are more arguments, than religion, against euthanasia? If not then go back to playing with your crayons.
 
atlantabiolab said:


Liberals are pathetic in their ability to think. Do you believe that one who is against euthanasia must be a religious zealot? Do you think that possibly there are more arguments, than religion, against euthanasia? If not then go back to playing with your crayons.


Yay.....we have an eloquent conservative to do battle with the liberals.

I'm stuck in the middle, I just enjoy some good old fashioned mud slinging.:)
 
atlantabiolab said:


Liberals are pathetic in their ability to think. Do you believe that one who is against euthanasia must be a religious zealot? Do you think that possibly there are more arguments, than religion, against euthanasia? If not then go back to playing with your crayons.

Talk about lapses of logic. How do you get from my statement in this respect to the generalization that all people opposing euthanasia are zealots? (The reductive, totalizing thought of the dogmatist ascribed to the other?) Ashcroft has self-identified as an evangelical Christian and said that he opposes euthanasia,like abortion, on religious basis. He used a pathetic bureaucratic argument, well documented in the press, and when it collapsed, he resorted to a religious riff. The voters of ORegon themselves chose to legalize euthanasia, so I don't think your argument, which is about consensus, makes much difference here, anyway.

Is it really necessary for you to resort continually to personal insults? YOu are not the only person around here with an opinion worth hearing.
 
musclebrains said:


Talk about lapses of logic. How do you get from my statement in this respect to the generalization that all people opposing euthanasia are zealots? (The reductive, totalizing thought of the dogmatist ascribed to the other?) Ashcroft has self-identified as an evangelical Christian and said that he opposes euthanasia,like abortion, on religious basis. He used a pathetic bureaucratic argument, well documented in the press, and when it collapsed, he resorted to a religious riff. The voters of ORegon themselves chose to legalize euthanasia, so I don't think your argument, which is about consensus, makes much difference here, anyway.

Is it really necessary for you to resort continually to personal insults? YOu are not the only person around here with an opinion worth hearing.

Here is your original statemtent:

I read about Hager's religious background yesterday. An appalling example of the way Dubya is using the state to advance religious agendas. Don't forget that Ashcroft, who leads prayer meetings in the White House, tried to suspend euthanasia laws in states that have legalized it.

You referenced religion three times, making the insinuation that this theocracy is infringing on the "rights" of the people.

There is no "right" to euthanasia. If you wish to kill yourself then be a fucking individual and kill yourself, no one can stop you. Government mandating the killing of individuals is not an authority I wish to perpetuate. Norway is a great example of this problem. Gramps has cancer at the hospital and is terminal and a young person comes in for a heart bypass. Too bad old man, we need the bed and you are not productive anymore, while this guy still has 30 more years. Here's a nice little morphine nightcap for you.

As for the voters of Oregon, who cares what they think. If we asked them to vote for a bill that would give each Oregonian one million dollars from the national treasury, do you think it would pass? A majority does not make it right. But what would you know about principles and values, socialists are all for the tyranny of the majority.

It is amazing that the concept of euthanasia is so esteemed in the liberal mindset, yet the death penalty to convicted murderers is anathema. But then assbackwards logic is the status quo for liberals.
 
atlantabiolab said:
Why is it horrible that a physician is anti-abortion. Do you think that all scientists espouse the notion that abortion on demand is a "right"? Do you also believe that all anti-abortionists are basing their dissent on religious convictions?
Let's try this again for the kids in the back of the bus.

This guy DOES NOT PRESCRIBE CONTRACEPTION TO HIS UNMARRIED PATIENTS.

HE WROTE A "MEDICAL" BOOK IN WHICH HE ESPOUSES READING THE BIBLE AND PRAYER TO RELIEVE PMS.

IN ANOTHER BOOK, HE SUPPORTS THE INCORRECT MEDICAL ASSERTION THAT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE AN ABORTIFACIENT (CAUSES ABORTION OF A CONCEPTUS OR FERTILIZED OVUM)

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, HIS MEDICAL JUDGEMENTS IN REGARDS TO REPRODUCTION ARE BASED ON RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS, NOT ON SCIENCE. LIKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, MEDICINE AND RELIGION NEED TO BE SEPARATED.

This is not a simple matter of his being "anti-abortion," as a women's care provider, I can assure you that his positions are anti-women. Furthermore, all that nonsense Bigguns7 cut-and-pasted is utter bullshit. You clearly have no idea how "best docs in (fill in the blank)...." get 'chosen.' Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Infectious Diseases in Ob/Gyn is about a ten-page leaflet. Doesn't take much to be an "expert" and it definitely has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN"S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES. That would be like saying a world-renown maternal-fetal expert (also an Ob/Gyn) is in a position to comment on gynecologic oncology or pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Trust me on this one, children, I know from where I speak.
 
atlantabiolab said:


Here is your original statemtent:



You referenced religion three times, making the insinuation that this theocracy is infringing on the "rights" of the people.

There is no "right" to euthanasia. If you wish to kill yourself then be a fucking individual and kill yourself, no one can stop you. Government mandating the killing of individuals is not an authority I wish to perpetuate. Norway is a great example of this problem. Gramps has cancer at the hospital and is terminal and a young person comes in for a heart bypass. Too bad old man, we need the bed and you are not productive anymore, while this guy still has 30 more years. Here's a nice little morphine nightcap for you.

As for the voters of Oregon, who cares what they think. If we asked them to vote for a bill that would give each Oregonian one million dollars from the national treasury, do you think it would pass? A majority does not make it right. But what would you know about principles and values, socialists are all for the tyranny of the majority.

It is amazing that the concept of euthanasia is so esteemed in the liberal mindset, yet the death penalty to convicted murderers is anathema. But then assbackwards logic is the status quo for liberals.

I am well aware of the tyranny of the majority. It's one reason the Constitution has had to be amended so often. However, nobody is forced to kill themselves in euthanasia. The Oregon law protects people from prosecution in assisted death cases. It does not in any way mandate euthanasia.

I have to return the compliment. It is amazing the conclusions you jump to. You've got a "liberal profile" in your mind that is as dogmatic as a southern sheriff's racial profiling. Indeed, you even presume an Oregon law, simply because it authorizes euthanasia, must mandate it NOrway-like.

OH, and by the way, the typical conservative's favoring of the death penalty (despite the commandment without stipulation) but opposing abortion on (the religious) sanctity-of-life basis is an equally hilarioius breach of "logic."

And now I'm a socialist.

What about a terrorist sympathizer? Happy EID!
 
thebabydoc said:
Let's try this again for the kids in the back of the bus.

This guy DOES NOT PRESCRIBE CONTRACEPTION TO HIS UNMARRIED PATIENTS.

Actually he statements were that he doesn't like to prescribe single women birth control, but will if they insist. But tell me when did people have a right to drugs? Will you prescribe me steroids if I ask? What if I insist? Is he doing anything illegal?

Is Hager the gatekeeper of all birth control? Hell women can buy birth control off of the internet now, how much power does this guy have?

HE WROTE A "MEDICAL" BOOK IN WHICH HE ESPOUSES READING THE BIBLE AND PRAYER TO RELIEVE PMS.

Can you quote these passages? Or is this just information that you received from voices that are against his appointment? Did he truly state that the Bible and prayer relieves ailments or did he just advocate religion in a holistic manner?

IN ANOTHER BOOK, HE SUPPORTS THE INCORRECT MEDICAL ASSERTION THAT BIRTH CONTROL PILLS ARE AN ABORTIFACIENT (CAUSES ABORTION OF A CONCEPTUS OR FERTILIZED OVUM)

He may have. This shocks me no more than the pro-abortion irrationality that a fetus does not meet the definition of a life or that it meets the criteria for a parasite. Nothing more that species arguments.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE, HIS MEDICAL JUDGEMENTS IN REGARDS TO REPRODUCTION ARE BASED ON RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS, NOT ON SCIENCE. LIKE THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, MEDICINE AND RELIGION NEED TO BE SEPARATED.

The man simply believes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, there is no objective basis that science can disprove this since it is a subjective/religious concept. You might be surprised that our grandparents' culture had this crazy notion too.

This is not a simple matter of his being "anti-abortion," as a women's care provider, I can assure you that his positions are anti-women. Furthermore, all that nonsense Bigguns7 cut-and-pasted is utter bullshit. You clearly have no idea how "best docs in (fill in the blank)...." get 'chosen.' Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but Infectious Diseases in Ob/Gyn is about a ten-page leaflet. Doesn't take much to be an "expert" and it definitely has NOTHING TO DO WITH WOMEN"S REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH ISSUES. That would be like saying a world-renown maternal-fetal expert (also an Ob/Gyn) is in a position to comment on gynecologic oncology or pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. Trust me on this one, children, I know from where I speak.

Of course he is "anti-women", everyone knows that the only criteria needed is to be anti-abortion. He probably sterilizes all women who come in to his office and probably clitorectomies, too. Please.

Please counter the credentials of this man, that bigguns presented. Your arguments are weak. Most Dr.'s are a combination of crash courses in fields of medicine. I have laughed at the pharmacology knowledge of most of the physicians I have met. The position this man is being appointed to seems to be more related to statistical sciences and research validation, not hands on science such as reconstructive surgery. Please tell us what type of physician would be most appropriate to this position, in terms of medical background, barring moral principles.

I often agree with your posts, but your arguments seem subjective on this matter.
 
musclebrains said:


I am well aware of the tyranny of the majority. It's one reason the Constitution has had to be amended so often. However, nobody is forced to kill themselves in euthanasia. The Oregon law protects people from prosecution in assisted death cases. It does not in any way mandate euthanasia.

The Constitution was designed as a foundation to be built upon, but the Framers were not for the creation of laws that contradicted the established principles that it stated. Hamilton stated that any law that violated the Constitution was invalid. The 16th Amendment is a great example of this fiasco, not to mention the 17th.

Where the hell did I say that euthanasia FORCES someone to kill someone. But as you state the law protects from prosecution one who assists in euthanasia. So if a physician deems grandma terminal and euthanizes her, with her consent, the state can do nothing about it.

Being a mental health worker, do you think that all decisions during times of severe stress are the choices that one would make if given time to consider the situation? And even if that is your final decision, then you have the onus placed upon yourself to complete the task, do not burden others with this action.


I have to return the compliment. It is amazing the conclusions you jump to. You've got a "liberal profile" in your mind that is as dogmatic as a southern sheriff's racial profiling. Indeed, you even presume an Oregon law, simply because it authorizes euthanasia, must mandate it NOrway-like.

I used Norway as an example of how this type of law has gone from the right to die to the "duty" to die. Actions have consequences. Morality slips into complacency and apathy.

OH, and by the way, the typical conservative's favoring of the death penalty (despite the commandment without stipulation) but opposing abortion on (the religious) sanctity-of-life basis is an equally hilarioius breach of "logic."

I know being a moral subjectivist and only seeing grey, this may be a hard thing to do, but try and differentiate between a murderer and an infant/fetus/baby, whatever you wish to call it. This is why many liberals can't differentiate between people, cows, and trees; they are moral relativists.

Which commandment are you refering too, surely not the Bible's commandment, which you cannot use to support your argument?

And now I'm a socialist.

I did not know that you didn't know that you were. I am sorry to have to have been the one to break it to you.

What about a terrorist sympathizer? Happy EID!
 
Testosterone boy said:




You know.....I have wondered how many gay men started out by banging the g/f in the back door. I'll bet a large percentage.



OK....lets get back to something of importance. What is the answer to this question?:confused:
 
Top Bottom