Bullshit. That’s not what I do. And if it were, it would be the work of a moment to refute me by doing just what I did here: posting the evidence of the correct context.
Probably yes. But surely you can see the answer depends on more factors. If your elderly relative is the only patient in the system that month, then it’s obviously a yes. If there are five million others and the doctors in the system are booked up, then some kind of triage might be necessary.
The point is: no matter what kind of system we devise, somewhere a line must be drawn, and that line is dictated by both practical concerns and political will. How important is it for the government to ensure medical care for everyone is a political question; the government does not have unlimited resources and must prioritize spending to meet its other obligations. And even assuming the government is applying a high priority to this mission, there is still a finite number of resources to call upon.
That is reality. It is acceptable for some people to die because they cannot afford medical care. That’s an inevitable consequence of any medical rationing system.
I did say that atheists who oppose abortion presumably do it for a sentimental reason. Which I find shitty, but less shitty than inflicting the brainwashing your parents did to you, on the hoi polloi.
Given what I know about you, that you, for instance think crackers are sometimes magical, I have strong doubts that your belief in a soul has nothing to do with your opposition to abortion.
No one disputes this. You might note that we have a rationing system now. And people with a profit motive are the ones that make the decisions.
But how do you reconcile that belief when you see that other people reach an identical conclusion with zero belief in magical crackers?
So you have simply announced what I believe, and that’s that?
Well, it’s hard to surmount that tactic.
Three people have the favorite color green. One likes trees, one likes money and one likes alligator pussy. They each have the same favorite, but they come to it in different ways.
Didn’t law school teach you that the same action can have plenty of different motives? Maybe you should ask for your money back.
The fact that you have a strong belief in the supernatural and it dictates many of your positions, I think, suggests that you are just following the church.
Well, I could be wrong. As I say, it’s based on my read of your behavior.
I didn’t say that it is what you do. I said that it is the perception people have of what you do (well, my perception of what people’s perceptions are anyway).
Everytime I see someone complain about your style it is either about the “liberal hypocrisy” shtick or about how you are misconstruing their or others off the cuff remarks and interpreting them in the light of legal courtroom definitions vs. everyday usage which is not precise and will contain an element of hyperbole. In light of the latter I found it amusing that you were caught out in making a remark that was memorable, quotable and, as you did not clarify in that thread, does not lend itself to correct interpretation without effort that an onlooker following the link would not necessarily know to make.
OK. That’s certainly clear, and, indeed, not without its irony.
Three people are helping out at a soup kitchen in the basement of a public school. One is an atheist, who does it because his moral compass directs him to, one is a Christian, who feels his faith and Christian doctrine compels him to help those less fortunate then he, the other is a fellow newly converted to being Christian just a year ago, but he has been helping out at the kitchen for 5 years. Questions:
- Would you be able to point out which is which as they serve soup?
- As far as the third fellow, why is he helping out at the soup kitchen?
- To what degree should we consider helping out at a soup kitchen an act that is being done due to the teachings of Jesus?
The point, of course, is that since there is a valid non-religious foundation for X, you can’t claim that the justification for X is religious belief.
He said “perceived.” And since at least one person here does perceive exactly that, then what he said is true.
Bricker > Petard > hoist. Again.
Post 1029.
You have your moments. But they are moments.
I can make a reasonable case if I see the person talking at length about religious stuff.
Bricker really digs his Catholicism. Those priests who brainwashed him set the hooks deep.
Case for what? That Bricker’s motivation for his position is Catholicism-based? Obviously, his Catholicism plays some role in his position, somewhere between 0% - 100%. He has told you that it plays little role. But even if it was 100%, so what? That merely goes to his position. Do you think the subject of the thread is “Bricker’s Motivation for Being Pro-Life”? It’s not. So even if a particular person’s motivation is purely religious, so what? It has been proven to you that people can have a position against abortion that is non-Christian based—even non-religion based,—so I just don’t get what you’re trying to prove/show.
This is unclear at best, or at least I haven’t seen a pro-life argument that didn’t rely on religion or some religion-like ideal like “humans are special”.
You might spend some time at Clinic Quotes. This site was founded by pro-life activist and ardent atheist Sarah Turzo. Interestingly enough, she excoriates the pro-life movement as a whole for being hostile to atheists in this essay.
But she is clearly pro-life, and equally clearly atheist, and equally clearly not alone. (Motto: “Because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.”)
The practical distinction between “Because life is all there is and all that matters” and “God says life is all there is and all that matters” eludes me.
Well, for one thing, God – at least the typical Christian version – doesn’t say that. In God’s message, our life here on Earth is merely a blip on the radar for life everlasting. In contrast, as I understand the message from that page, life here on earth, as human beings, is all that there is, and there is no rescue in any sort of heavenly reward. This makes preserving human life more important than it might be otherwise.