| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne James Simpson
|
| | (...) Since I received several error messages when trying to open dictionary.com, I will quote you one of the definitions of "objective" from The American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition: "2) Having actual existence or reality." I meant (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | |
| | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne John DiRienzo
|
| | | | "James Simpson" <mitchjacko@cs.com> wrote in message news:G3vtI2.BtK@lugnet.com... (...) most (...) of (...) help (...) believe (...) What do you mean justice exists? Thats preposterous. Justice doesn't exist. If it did there wouldn't be the words (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) Perhaps I didn't phrase my sentiments clearly. Perhaps I should have said that some actions are inherently just and some are inherently unjust. I believe that Justice is the embodiment of certain moral principles that are objectively true, and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | (canceled) Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | |
| | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) From Merriam-Webster's (URL) , the essense of objective is something "having reality independent of the mind." So two rational people examining the evidence, will come to the same conclusion about objective matters. The very fact that I (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne James Simpson
|
| | | | (...) I in fact do believe that certain moral truths operate independently of the mind. Because something is objectively true, it does not follow that the moral truth is imminently and transparently obvious to an observer. You may be right - my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) protecting (...) soldiers, (...) What if you're protecting your homeland and you're sniping wounded soldiers? Those folks are going to get medical attention and come back with guns. And when they do, they're likely to be mad. So why not kill (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne James Simpson
|
| | | | | (...) Reasonable limits have to be set somewhere. One can err by taking "what-if" scenarios too far when considering actions. The idea of killing wounded soldiers just because they *might* become able-bodied seems morally-repugnant. Better to take (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) I can respect that. (...) I don't know the tenets of your religion very well, having never agreed with them. But is it your job to mete out that kind of justice according to Christianity? I thought Christ admonished you to turn the other cheek (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) That is indeed a principle tenent of the faith. I won't lie to you that I have questions as to how the balance of mercy/judgment must be applied by the state (whatever political state it might be). I think that the criminal justice system has (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) someone (...) Wow. I don't buy your arguments for many things, but this was good! Really. You basically used the same logic that I use for why it's OK to use lethal force to defend your home. Hmmm. (...) for (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Well, I'd hate to think that you'd circumcise the poor guy again! I'm not sure where I come down on the whole snippage issue; the arguments about hygiene and "healthier in the long run" just don't seem that solid. I suppose it *is* mutilation, (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) I (...) Well, you know, only as punishment. ;-) (...) It sounds below like you have no reason to be unsure. Why would you do it? (...) Me too. I think that's why it's so hard for people to abandon the practice. And honestly, an unmutilated (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne John Neal
|
| | | | Christopher Weeks wrote: <snippage of er, snippage discussion> (...) How on earth could you make an informed decision on *that*? ;-) John (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |