Why do *YOU* care about *MY* Soul???

The BBQ Pit
1

It is MINE damnit, piss off.

Seriously now, why the HELL do so many conservatives try and legislate morals and ethics?

Laws should be there *to promote the good of all people. Not to promote the good of all people’s souls.

Seriously, if you ARE right then I am going to hell, and since that by your own admittance is the worst damn thing in all of existence that can happen to me, why do you even bother trying to get your piss ant civil rights negating laws passed?

If a mother wants to abort a fetus, she is the one going to hell, not you, so shut up. Yah yah I can understand you wanting to save a life, but hell, why don’t you spend your time legislating something USEFUL for a change that would make an actual difference in the number of fetuses that end up getting aborted.

Mandatory abstinence education in schools for instance, or outlawing those d*mn friggin “cut to slightly above the vagina” mini skirts (WTF is up with those?? ::sighs:: )

But hell, going around and screwing up other people’s lives is just wrong. Or right, which ever, but as I said, if you are soooo confident in us going to hell any ways, why are YOU bothering? Is it not intent/desire that dictates our fate any ways? I mean people are still going to tarnish their souls with wrong thought, so you should have plenty of cannon fodder for ol gnarled ones pits, no worries about that.
And I am going to punch the next damn hypocritical pro-drugs anti-everythingelse conservative that I meet. The Bible never mentioned anything against coathooks, but it sure as hell had a few things to say about actions which are taken solely for the pleasure of those actions. (and drugs definitely fit into that category. . . .)

And it was be FRUITFUL and Multiply damnit, not "Let yourselves rot and multiply." (less people needed, please, stop having kids. Now.)

2

I sympathise (empathise?) with the problem of legislating one’s own faith. I suppose it’s a hard one to figure for many public servants. If I were in government I don’t know what I’d do. At the moment my beliefs are “harmless” in that I can sit and listen and try to provide wisdom when people want it. But if I actually found myself in a position where I might be able to, say, ban abortion, it’d take a Big Muchness of self-control to resist it. I don’t like abortion, but I don’t think anyone, pro life or pro choice, really LIKES abortion. Obviously Christ would say something shatteringly unexpected that made us all think “Hey… I really learned something here today.” But my own problem if I were in power is that it’d be much easier to make a Big Dumb Gesture than to mumble quietly about the different aspects of the debate and hope someone picked up on the vibe I was trying to impart with my cosmic deely-bobbers. I’d probably end up making the Big Dumb Gesture, and I’d probably be wrong. But in a political landscape where only Big Dumb Gestures ever seem to happen, would that be so wrong? Would it? Would it?

I’m trying to agree with you. I’ve messed it up a bit.

3

Wait, so you’re saying that if I know of an action that I believe will cause you physical and spiritual harm. I shouldn’t try to stop you from doing it, either through legislation or some other way?

The thing to understand is that, for most pro-life people, abortion is a real and absolute moral evil that isn’t acceptable in a society. People who see it that way see a law allowing abortion the same way you probably would see a law allowing the sentencing of people without trial, or summary executions, or some other reprehensible law that violates our values and takes away human rights. You may not agree, and most Americans don’t agree, but pro-lifers tend to actually believe that, and they aren’t doing what they’re doing to be repressive…they actually believe they’re acting to make the country better.

4

and

Anybody notice an interesting parallel here? Apparently, the only “piss ant laws” that Com2Kid wants done away with are those which he disagrees with. There’s nothing quite like righteous indignated coupled with a dash of hypocrisy.

I know it’s a hijack unrelated to the main point of the OP, but DAMN, this hits a nerve. And yes, I know, the OP was making use of hyperbole. Both High Schools I have attended over the last three years made use of constant, hard-hitting abstinence “education,” and do you know what it did? Not a goddamn thing. People are having sex before the classes, after the classes, and probably occasionally during the damn classes. We’d do better to -educate- our children rather than trying to keep them in the dark about how the world works.

5

A number of pro-lifers have gone on record stating that they do not support abortion even when it WOULD help SAVE the mother’s life. Doh. So much for that preventing physical harm thing. . . .

Human rights? What human rights? I see it as strictly a biblical issue, they say the bible says don’t abort babies, I note that the Bible doesn’t say much of anything concerning modern medical practices.

Though optimialy all rapists would be shot and at bare minimum everybody would use a good condum + other preventatives and there would be no need for abortions at all and it would be a moot point.

except for the catholics but nobody listens to them anyways. :smiley:

6

But of course legislation WOULDN’T prevent abortion, it’d just force women and girls underground (and backstreet abortionists didn’t have a shiny-clean record on avoiding fatal complications), and alienate them even further from the church.

I think an awful lot of things may work that way. drugs. It’s an old argument but i don’t see an alternative.

The reason I’d resist the legislation is because it might further prevent an intelligent debate. Legislating against abortion would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
But in office I’d probably cave. It may be a delicate issue but it’s very hard to think delicately when you have to choose between a generation of young women and another of unborn kids.

Anyway, hell-wise, you’re not going to stop ANYbody going to hell by physically stopping them sinning. They have to choose not to sin. That choice will still face them elsewhere.

Anybody has a clue what I’m talking about, drop me a postcard, I’d love to know.

7

And WHERE THE HELL did I say that students shouldn’t be taught?

Hell I am all for full disclosure, in fact I believe in full disclosure at an EARLIER age.

My district gave out sex ed in the 4th and 5th grades, basicaly presented it in the most boring and fact filled way possible.

By the time puberty actualy hit, sex was like “oh yah, that, read about it ::yawn::”

8

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:
stv

9

Well, to those people, abortion is an absolute moral evil that can never be tolerated, even if it’ll save the mother’s life. I think that’s a minority pro-life view, though.
**

Well, they consider it a moral issue, and they use the bible to support their view. The pro-life argument tends to be “Abortion is the murder of an unborn baby. Our society doesn’t realize that, because we’ve decided that fetuses aren’t fully human beings and don’t have rights. That’s immoral. If we come out and say some other group of people aren’t fully human, don’t have rights, and they can be killed on a whim, nobody would support that. Let’s change the law to protect the rights of everyone, even the unborn.”

You might not agree with that position, but if you have that belief, it logically follows that you would want abortion to be illegal. I think most pro-lifers realize that even if abortion is outlawed, it’ll still happen, but

  1. Fewer people will have abortions

and

  1. Society will no longer support the practice.

Both of which they see as positive goods.

10

There’s nothing like over-sized font to lend credibility to an argument.

In my previous post, I was implying that abstinence"education" (which you seem to find so important that it should be legislated) is equivalent to not teaching children about how to safely prevent STDs and pregnancy. Therefore, by mandating abstinence “education” we are keeping our children ignorant.

I’m not suggesting that abstinence isn’t a viable way to keep STDs and pregnancy down - it is, for obvious reasons. However, it’s unrealistic and impractical.

11

Legislation also does not prevent the following crimes:

  • Burglary
  • Auto theft
  • Common assault
  • Sexual assault
  • Income tax evasion
  • Drunk driving
  • Pollution laws
  • etc., etc.

I am firmly pro-choice. But even I can see the majority of “pro lifers are hypocrites” arguments are total bullshit. Actually, the abortion debate is 90% bullshit; it’s all emotion, little logic.

IF you believe the fetus is a human being - and I’m not saying I do, but let’s consider the pro-life position - you would have to fight to prevent abortion, wouldn’t you? If you knew of a group of people being systematically murdered, would you do nothing? That’s the position pro-lifers are in, and that’s why it’s a debate with no peaceful solution.

12

Rather than turn this toward an abortion debate (which I imagine even GD would frown upon rehashing) I’ll take your issue on these “conservatives” legislating morality. You’re right, they shouldn’t be using legislation to “save our souls.”

And the liberals shouldn’t be using legislation to “save us from ourselves.” Which party has been fighting to prevent me from smoking a cigarette, and ultimately seeks a ban on tobacco? Democratic party. Which party has sent out the safety nazis to stop us from driving our light trucks and SUVs because of rollover possibility? Democrats (and Nader.) Which party is in favor of legislation that would put a sin tax on fatty foods? Democratic party. What party is responsible for the fact that I’m forced to put a percentage of my weekly income into a losing retirement plan so that I won’t starve if I squander my money like an idiot? FDR and the Democrats.

For every Christian conservative who thinks he knows what’s best for my soul, there’s a liberal Democrat who thinks he knows what’s best for my body and my wallet. I guess the punk band Bad Religion was right: Everybody knows what’s best for you.

13

Same reason liberals do (though they cloak it in nicer-sounding words and have different issues they try to legislate) “For your own good.”

And this from the moron who said he’d like to kill all druggies. I’d call you a hypocrite, but I don’t think you’re bright enough to be one.

I wonder: Are you actually so stupid as to hold wildly contradictory positions (“I don’t want you to legislate morality” / “If you do drugs, you should be killed”), or are you just chosing topics that you think’ll stir up trouble?

Either way, let me assure you that speaking as a conservative, I couldn’t give a rat’s fuck for your soul.

Or you.

You’re tedious AND an idiot. A bad combination.

Fenris

14

Ok

Who said anything about from ourselves?

Cigarette usage is detrimental to society as a whole, do not inflate your own self importance, nobody legislating laws gives a shit about you.

If you are referring to legislation mandating that car manufacturers build SAFE cars and do NOT fuck you over to save an extra buck or too;

hey, I tell ya what, get a huge 9.2ft dildo out, lube it up with bengay, and shove it up your ass. Complete metaphorical simulation of what your life would be like if those “damned liberals” didn’t keep companies from running your sorry ass over with a steamroller.

I object! Object object OBJECT.

Nader is very much freedom of action, a bit more so then I would necessarily like, but a TON better then what many corporate owned democrats are turning into now days. (demos are not as bad as the repubs, yet :frowning: )

Hell do you even KNOW of the various pro-company laws that have been passed lately? Do you know how many of your freedoms have been taken away, how much innovation has been stifled, and what research papers have been suppressed by corporate imposed order?

No?

Do some reading.

:rolleyes:

You do not even have to be a kook to be scared shit less by some of the inane ass laws that congress and the senate are passing these days.

I myself am damned glad that there ARE people like Nader out there who are fighting to ensure freedom of ACTION for citizens.

I heard something of that two years ago, wasn’t it laughed away? Heh. Hardly a party opinion held at large, yeesh.

::sighs:: the SDMB does not have a size tag big enough for the fuck you that is needed here. . . . :frowning:

A

“Fuck off you middle class bigot”

will have to suffice.

Once again, nobody gives a fuck about you. It is just the others whom you are capable of hurting that laws are designed to help; and that is how it should be.

See above.

15

Cite? And by that I don’t mean “well, here are two pro-life people you’ve never heard of who say that.” [sub]Only you can prevent “I heard on the news that” fires…[/sub]

I think it’s a bit late for that…

16

Society is a fictional device created for the sake of brevity. There is no society, just a bunch of distinct individuals. Laws affect individuals in individual ways. Saying that it’s society, not individuals, effected is a copout.

I am against government playing favorites with corporations, just as Ayn Rand was against them. Assuming that someone who is against liberal social regulation is automatically in favor of doling out priviliges to businesses is jumping to conclusions. Government is too quick to regulate those businesses too, so any privileges come at the steep price of government intervention.

It’s coming. Legislation is being drafted, lawsuits are in the works. Harvard law professors are on board, so it’s only a matter of time.

WOW. I have been lurking on here for a few weeks now. You are the first person I have ever met on this board who I can say I don’t like. Not only do I not like you, I think you’re a total as*hole. So I object to a program that mismanages money I could use for my own retirement, that makes me a bigot? Because I merely suggest that Social Security assumes by its very existence that I will squander my money, that makes me a bigot? What the heck are you suggesting that I’m bigoted against? I was warmly greeted by everyone else I met on this board as I began posting, and now I have to see this right before I go to bed. What a jerk.

Well, I left your vulgarities intact so that people could see what I’m reacting to. I omitted the extremely vulgar dildo remark, much to the appreciation of the English language, a language screaming in pain after your use of it. I respond to your post with cool rational thought, and you give me this. I didn’t personally attack you for your inconsistent beliefs did I?

You toss around bitter vulgarities like ticker tape. I did not come onto this message board to be baselessly assaulted like this from an ignorant moron. I did not come here to be forced to defend myself from personal attacks from an incoherent jerk. I am willing to defend my thoughts and beliefs, but you’d rather toss the F-word around.

I assure you that your style of response does you no favors. Nobody respects a person who responds to ideas with raving vulgarity. You have a lot of growing up to do, kid.

17

Side point–

Pro-lifers aren’t in favor of letting the mother die so the unborn child can live…lordy, that’s silly. Pro-lifers (or the ones I know, anyway) simply favor saving the mother’s life without the use of abortion, that is, the direct killing of the fetus. For example, if the mother had a cancerous uterus, the uterus could be removed (sadly, the baby goes with it) without being illicit.

It’s an old principle known as the double effect, which holds that an action can have both a good and a bad effect and still be licit. The question is basically over what one’s intent is in doing the action. (For an example everyone can relate to, consider self-defense. It’s OK to shoot your 900-lb. attacker if your intent is to save your life. It’s bad to shoot your 900-lb. attacker if your goal is your personal enjoyment of seeing blood splatter.)

A double effect discussion is too long for this post, so the SHORT of it is that saying “pro-lifers are against abortion even when the mother’s life is at stake” is an incomplete statement. Far as I know (and, IANA physician), you can save the mother’s life without an abortion.

18

Well, that’s what pro-lifers think too. They’re not trying to stop abortions because of the mother…they’re trying to stop abortions because the mother is capable of hurting the fetus, and they want to stop it.

19

Com2Kid, what a bitter, bitter little man you are.

Allow me to highlight some of your more obnoxious bon mots (from this thread alone):

Quite frankly, given the shit you’ve spewed toward other posters in this thread-- not to mention your previously revealed views on drug users, or anyone who disagrees with you-- I find it hard to believe that anyone who has been exposed to your abrasive and rude ramblings would give two shits for you or your shriveled little soul. Rest assured, I don’t.

And regarding this:

(bolding mine)

I have to admit, I think it’s about time we got all those grass-smoking Republicans out of Congress. :rolleyes:

Typically conservatives aren’t pro-drug. But then again, I’m a (mostly) pro-life Democrat, so what do I know?
To sum up: You, sir, are an raging ass nugget.

[Fez]
Good day.
[/Fez]

stv

20

Rex: You’re a newbie who’s posts and posting style (as well as your sense of humor in your “Edit your own posts” thread) have impressed me. In return, please allow me to

A) welcome you to the Straight Dope (not that I have any official standing to do so. I’m just doing it as one Doper to another) and

B) point you to this SDMB Staff Report for perhaps a good reason not to waste too much effort arguing against Con2Kid.

Really. Unless you’re enjoying slapping him around (which, come to think of it, could be kinda fun…) don’t expend too much time or energy trying to talk rationally to him. Just remember the old proverb (from Twain? , Heinlein(?) ): Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig

Fenris