I observe that democracy is much like business,Barely. And he's still out of prison and he still has influence.
ie, the wolves are always at the door. Eternal
vigilance is necessary. Trump simply made this
more obvious to many.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I observe that democracy is much like business,Barely. And he's still out of prison and he still has influence.
And prison time would not keep him from trying again. Hitler was in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch (by far not long enough). But it would be a sign to any aspiring dictator.I observe that democracy is much like business,
ie, the wolves are always at the door. Eternal
vigilance is necessary. Trump simply made this
more obvious to many.
There are no guarantees in politics.And prison time would not keep him from trying again. Hitler was in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch (by far not long enough). But it would be a sign to any aspiring dictator.
And prison time would not keep him from trying again. Hitler was in prison for the Beer Hall Putsch (by far not long enough). But it would be a sign to any aspiring dictator.
I've said this in many threads, that my observations tell me that the Great American Experiment with democracy is, in the past few years and continuing for the next few, failing -- and that democracy is likely to soon be "in name only," and eventually disappear. But let me tell you why I think this is true. And it really is the simplest reason of all:
When a nation (or a very significant proportion of it) becomes convinced that they can't trust their own elections -- as the Trump "Big Lie" seems to have done for a huge number of people -- that when it doesn't go their way it can only be because it was "stolen" from them, well, what is left except violence to decide who gets to rule?
You're almost there, America. How are you going to find your way back to a real democracy, "a Republic, if you can keep it?"
Calling it an embryo instead of a human is an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of taking human life for the sake of convenience.An Embryo lacks the ability to suffer because it doesn't have a nervous system.
Asimov was an arrogant and annoying individual."There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
- Isaac Asimov
Calling it an embryo instead of a human is an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of taking human life for the sake of convenience.
If that's your only moral standard, you don't have one. And yes the baby suffers. But if it didn't she is still dead when she was a live human being previously. All your justification is just an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of 60 million children that never got the chance at life that you got.Does the conceptus suffer during abortion? I
If that's your only moral standard, you don't have one.
the baby suffers.
All your justification is just an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of 60 million children that never got the chance at life that you got.
We could argue, then, by that reasoning, that every time we refuse to have unprotected sex, we have denied another child's chance at life.If that's your only moral standard, you don't have one. And yes the baby suffers. But if it didn't she is still dead when she was a live human being previously. All your justification is just an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of 60 million children that never got the chance at life that you got.
We ll we can't lose what we never had.I've said this in many threads, that my observations tell me that the Great American Experiment with democracy is, in the past few years and continuing for the next few, failing -- and that democracy is likely to soon be "in name only," and eventually disappear. But let me tell you why I think this is true. And it really is the simplest reason of all:
When a nation (or a very significant proportion of it) becomes convinced that they can't trust their own elections -- as the Trump "Big Lie" seems to have done for a huge number of people -- that when it doesn't go their way it can only be because it was "stolen" from them, well, what is left except violence to decide who gets to rule?
You're almost there, America. How are you going to find your way back to a real democracy, "a Republic, if you can keep it?"
That is a horrible pickup line.We could argue, then, by that reasoning, that every time we refuse to have unprotected sex, we have denied another child's chance at life.
Dude, that's what you're doing, in the opposite, when you use words like "child" and "baby" and "person." This is just projection on your part.Calling it an embryo instead of a human is an attempt to distance yourself from the reality of taking human life for the sake of convenience.
There's a big difference between a "what if" and an already existing life.We could argue, then, by that reasoning, that every time we refuse to have unprotected sex, we have denied another child's chance at life.
Is it? The sperm in my body and the egg in my partner's body are alive and well and eager to be conjoined. But by using a condom we've denied that union and interrupted the procreation/gestation process of a human being. We've denied it access to the life it would have had. And isn't that exactly what the religious zealots are going to call a 'sin' when they decide that contraception is against God's rules and should be banned by civil law, next? Just like they want to ban homosexuality because it, too, allows people to have sex but denies the procreation process that results in a human life?There's a big difference between a "what if" and an already existing life.
You are just being ridiculous.Is it? The sperm in my body and the egg in my partner's body are alive and well and eager to be conjoined. But by using a condom we've denied that union and interrupted the procreation/gestation process of a human being. We've denied it access to the life it would have had. And isn't that exactly what the religious zealots are going to call a 'sin' when they decide that contraception is against God's rules and should be banned by civil law, next? Just like they want to ban homosexuality because it, too, allows people to have sex but denies the procreation process that results in a human life?
Hmmm ...You are just being ridiculous.
No one is banning sex.
Or contraceptions.
And if you can't tell the difference between sperm and a living fetus you need a biology lesson.
They've already stated that they are going to "revisit" gay sex and marriage, and contraceptive rights, next. And mark my words, they aren't going to stop there. They won't stop until someone stops them. Because, "doin' good ain't got no end" (from the movie, "Outlaw Josey Wales".)You are just being ridiculous.
No one is banning sex.
Or contraceptions.
I'm not the one that can't tell the difference. It's the Bible zealot that thinks God wrote his holy book that can't seem to differentiate between common sense and ancient superstition.And if you can't tell the difference between sperm and a living fetus you need a biology lesson.