No More Bin Laden

[kandrathe]

Our problem in the west is not with Islam it is with too old fashioned and traditional cultures.

Why do you assume that newer is better? The same rush to progress that wiped out indigenous people, and clear cut virgin forests, is still at play today only its in perhaps in poorly thought through changes in gene manipulation, chemical additives in food, or in production or use of materials.

OK, no I don't generally assume newer is better. But I assume liberal societies better than societies that consider women 2nd grade citizens for example.

I am for gender equality. Although, I recognize that different cultures value equality differently. They are "wrong" according to the way you and I think about it, but they are living as they have lived for hundreds, or thousands of years. We need to set some boundaries within our nations, but our opinions carry little weight beyond our borders. For example, I'm not sure we should fight a 10 year, trillion dollar war against Afghanistan, and the Taliban for the sake of woman's rights. I'm willing to work at changing their minds, but not at the point of a gun.

I'm probably one of those people you'd lump in with the "bad" Islam. I've grown more conservative as I get aged, but it's more a conservatism in realizing what we're destroying and what we've lost. And, I'm thinking about culture, art, language, and peoples experiences. I value the process of life, and the possibilities that a life can accumulate and inform the present and future.

So not the normal accepted kind of American conservative, but more conservative in certain topics.......so that is exactly as I am.

Yeah, I'd be hanged by both camps.

Religion becomes a way to justify forcing people to comply with one particular world view, and this application of force is just as flawed as is the one in your more humanist, more atheistic culture.

Well no. If I am for euthanasia it doesn't mean I want to euthanize people, it means I want to give them the chance to choose this path if THEY want to.

Ok, well you would choose the thorniest of issues. There is a vast difference in how this gets defined, from withholding treatments to actively causing death. At one end of the spectrum you have Dr. Jack Kevorkian who's "patients" turned out to be not so terminally ill after all, but only miserable. If misery is the only prerequisite, then I think we've solved the over population problem on the planet.

So, what if... Allowing babies to be killed in the womb really is a murder? And, I'm not talking a religious dogma here, be it Islam, or Christianity. Our societies all prohibit the killing of innocents, and some even prohibit the killing of the extremely malevolent. Obviously, the baby is not much different a week before delivery, than a week after delivery. So, placement within the womb is not an indication of the legality to terminate. Then typically the debate devolves into which body functions must be operational, which is problematic because the two most usual integral parts, the beating heart, and the brain are formed very early. Often by the time a women realizes she is pregnant (5 - 6 weeks), the fetus has already formed into a human child. At this point, disposing of it merely due to the inconvenience seems to me a bit morally callous. The same argument (inconvenient or a waste of resources) could be made for many adults, whether they be mentally challenged, elderly, or just slackers.

If you seriously want to discuss this with me you should not use sentence like '1 week before birth' and ' disposing merely due to inconvenience'. Your poisoning the discussion with fake arguments.

You don't like the argument, but it's not fake. What makes it a fake argument? With medical help, the fetus can survive outside the womb as early as 4 or 5 months. If anything, I'm framing the argument. We can agree that killing a baby in the womb one week before it's natural birth would be murder. Right? Now we just need to focus on why it's legal to kill a baby in the womb at some earlier stage of development. As for "inconvenience", I'm citing the statistics. From statistics, the overwhelming reason that women get abortions is that they don't feel able to raise a child. Less than 5% are due to rape, incest, or health concerns of the mother or fetus.

The US is pretty split on many of these types of issues, but the "science" of the issue has very little to do to inform the debates. For the "traditionalists" the issue has more to do with giving one person the right to terminate the life of another person, or even in allowing a person to self terminate.

Yes because this person (the mother) really has fun 'terminating the life of another person (her unborn child). Again if you seriously want to discuss this point you should not write down these scandalous and insulting phrases. The only thing you show when writing these things is not being capable of empathy. I 'know' you and know this is not the fact so please stop writing these things.

Hmmm, scandalous? But, you are correct, I do have empathy for the women who finds themselves in a situation they don't want to be in. It's not a fun thing at all. However, I'm going to be cautious about resolving their predicament with what might be a murder. I mean, you might inconveniently find a parcel of puppies left at your doorstep. It would be expedient to drown the unwanted rascals. Although, if I had to carry the puppies (now dogs) around with me for 1/2 a year, before I could give them away, I might very well consider murdering them too.

They'd listen to the science of how the embryo develops, but at a larger level it is irrelevant to these issues. This is not merely a Christianity, or Islam thing. Taboo's exist in almost every culture on the planet regarding the taking of lives. Generally, in all these cultures, the moral side involves preserving life, and the dark side involves terminating life. Infanticide, and euthanasia are issues for a society to resolve, barring all religious dogma, since "living" is fundamental to participation. These are also groups within the society who have the least capability of protecting themselves from the tyranny of the majority. It's not much of a step from this, to relieving the inconvenient mentally infirm from their suffering existence (and saving us lots of wasted time and money).

Again, your opinion is troubled by the propaganda of fox news. Just like earlier written in this thread (meat or gnollguy I believe) people really think euthanasia is forced upon people which is so not true. And also the mother (parents) should have the right to choose what's right for her child. Everyone can see that the injustice done when aborting does not come close to the injustice of being an unwanted abused child.

Ouch! Low blow! I don't listen to faux news. Please don't accuse me of having not thought this through. An issue in our modern society with its more casual sexual adventures is the unwanted pregnancy, and due to our paternalistic social past the burden of this falls directly upon the young woman, who is embarrassed, fearful, and finding her frivolity is coming at a terrible life changing price. So imagine if our government were better at holding the male equally accountable for producing a child, or if our societies were more embracing of single mothers. I think rather the abortion industry preys upon the fears of people who find themselves in a tough spot, and they offer them what seems to be a pretty easy solution. I guess it's the same with Dr. Kevorkian. You are afraid of a painful death, and so your fear becomes a marketing tool.

Extending the issue of rights further, I ask, what gives you (whether it be a person or government) the right to tell me what to do?

Indeed nothing. And that is why I am for the right to euthanasia and abortion. And against religious nut jobs telling other people what to do.

It's not that simple. You have determined that it is "moral" for a person to have the right to make life or death decisions regarding their own lives, or their offspring. What about honor killing? In some cultures, if a child dishonors their parents, the parents kill them. Now see, you and I would agree that honor killing is wrong. Many people, myself included, have questions about the legality of abortion/infanticide. Not because we are "nut jobs" or that we are mindless zombies being brain washed by Fox News, but that like honor killing, it just might be that we've become too liberal in allowing certain members of our society to be murdered. We do need to draw a line as to what we "let people do", and that line usually is when one person harms another. Some euthanasia, and abortions are in that area where one person is harming (killing) another person and they deserve careful scrutiny. Being that I'm extremely "liberal" in the classical notion, I too would want to extend a maximal amount of freedom to individuals. But, that freedom ends when it begins to extinguish the freedom of another individual. Should we have the freedom to end our own lives? Maybe, if we are competent to make that decision. Should we be allowed to end the lives of other people? Probably not. And, it becomes doubly troubling to me when we give the government the power to kill us.

Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?

Because this is inequality. You agree with the fact that men have a god given power over women.

No, not generally. I know I do.

the yoke of government, whether it be exercised by Washington, Amsterdam, or Tehran.

The dutch government resides in the Hague.

Well, there's your problem. I forgot that Queen Beatrix is toothless like other European royals.

More directly on the topic; I have no issue with Islam, or any religious groups as long as politically and as expressed in their laws they respect the rights of people who are not like them to have freedoms within the society (which may or may not be dominated by them).

I agree. Sadly there are very little examples of this being really true. Not even in Holland, Denmark or Sweden. Maybe in France.

There are places and times throughout history when pluralism has worked, and often it's mucked up by the "nut jobs".