Satisfactory progress being made in the liberal agenda

[Little-Acorn]

It is very well established that the left promotes its agenda a little bit at a time. If they can get people used to just a little help from government, then that sets the stage for "a little more" later. And even later, just a little more.

But "help from government" isn't the only thing the leftists are interested in promoting.

We all know how inconvenient it is to have children. They get in the wsay so much, and often force us into major lifestyle changes we don't want. Oh, bother. Well, thanks to the efforts of the leftists, we are now pretty much used to the idea that it's OK to get rid of the unborn baby in the womb. And we no longer have to think about unpleasant phrases like "kill them".

Well, now it's a little later. And some of them apparently think it's time to introduce the next small step.

--------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

[logroller]

It is very well established that the left promotes its agenda a little bit at a time. If they can get people used to just a little help from government, then that sets the stage for "a little more" later. And even later, just a little more.

But "help from government" isn't the only thing the leftists are interested in promoting.

We all know how inconvenient it is to have children. They get in the wsay so much, and often force us into major lifestyle changes we don't want. Oh, bother. Well, thanks to the efforts of the leftists, we are now pretty much used to the idea that it's OK to get rid of the unborn baby in the womb. And we no longer have to think about unpleasant phrases like "kill them".

Well, now it's a little later. And some of them apparently think it's time to introduce the next small step.

--------------------------------------

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent
1:38PM GMT 29 Feb 2012

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life”. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were “fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society”.

The article, entitled “After-birth abortion: Why should the baby live?”, was written by two of Prof Savulescu’s former associates, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”.

wait, so is this meant to imply that previous arguments suggest that whether or not abortion would be permitted somehow hinged on rather the child was disabled?

[Abbey Marie]

The slippery slope lives!

[PostmodernProphet]

The slippery slope lives!

or in this instance, the slippery slope kills.....

[SassyLady]

absolutely disgusting!

Slippery slope will eventually have not even having sex because it might produce a fetus....might as well kill the urge to have babies ....therefore, why not sterilize everyone?

[revelarts]

absolutely disgusting!

Slippery slope will eventually have not even having sex because it might produce a fetus....might as well kill the urge to have babies ....therefore, why not sterilize everyone?
You only sterilize the unfit people, the useless eaters. But why waste time just kill all the useless people, that's what they are really after.



By the "Medical Ethicist " logic old people should be kill too, the mentally handicapped, the Handicapped, people in a coma, the mentally slow they don't "really" know what's going on it's best to put them down. huh?

But that's ALWAYS been implied from their position. It's the inevitable conclusion when you start from premises like;
Human life is only worth being protected when it's "viable". the definition of which is Never fixed.
AND OR Human beings are just animals, like any others, with no more actual intrinsic value than a slug. (Thank evolution here.)
AND OR The health of society trumps the life of the individual. The definition of Health never fixed but redefined when anything threatens it, real or imagined, global warming or over population anyone.

[Noir]

It's an interesting philosophical take on personhood, but little more than that.

[Thunderknuckles]

I had to Google the names of those "Doctors". No surprise to find they are a couple of young punks.
These jokers are dismissed until they have actually lived enough to gain an ounce of wisdom from human experience and be thankful no one made a "moral" decision about their right to live.

[Shadow]

I remember reading and watching an interview with a nurse who came out with a story like this during the elections...and the research that followed. Obama was one of a very few Dems who backed this practice (even fought for it). When even Hillary Clinton thought it went to far (if I remember correctly). I believe the baby in question was a downs syndrome baby...and was left to die alone in a back room somewhere thrown away like trash. Truly sick what people will do to other humans in pursuit of their "agenda".

[Wind Song]

Interesting how you cons start threads about liberals and no liberals post here.

[Thunderknuckles]

Interesting how you cons start threads about liberals and no liberals post here.
So what's your position on this article? Agree, disagree?

[SassyLady]

Interesting how you cons start threads about liberals and no liberals post here.

Because liberal ideas about the sanctity of life are more controversial and need to be discussed, whether liberals post here or not.

Didn't know there were rules about what could be posted here based upon the demographics of this board.

Besides, you are not the boss of what gets posted here. :slap:

[Wind Song]

Because liberal ideas about the sanctity of life are more controversial and need to be discussed, whether liberals post here or not.

Didn't know there were rules about what could be posted here based upon the demographics of this board.

Besides, you are not the boss of what gets posted here. :slap:


What is the "liberal agenda" according to you? Do all liberals have the same stance on every issue?

[ConHog]

What is the "liberal agenda" according to you? Do all liberals have the same stance on every issue?

Are you incapable of staying on topic?

[Wind Song]

Are you incapable of staying on topic?

The topic is the liberal agenda. I'm asking what you think that means.

[SassyLady]

It's an interesting philosophical take on personhood, but little more than that.

And, it's this type of minimizing the subject that allows the slippery slope to exist.

[SassyLady]

What is the "liberal agenda" according to you? Do all liberals have the same stance on every issue?

It is wide and varied but the underlying theme is to eradicate personal responsibility.

Edited to add:

Not all liberals have same stance on all issues; not all conservatives have same stance on every issue.

[Wind Song]

It is wide and varied but the underlying theme is to eradicate personal responsibility.

Edited to add:

Not all liberals have same stance on all issues; not all conservatives have same stance on every issue.


I disagree with you that there is a liberal "agenda". There are a number of civil rights and anti-war movements that are considered "liberal" but they have nothing to do with eradicating personal responsibility.

Perhaps you could elaborate more on exactly what you mean and which liberals you are talking about.

Liberals aren't terribly organized into broad, groups. Conservatives organize by religion, and they are a big group with an agenda of policing other peoples moral choices.

[Noir]

And, it's this type of minimizing the subject that allows the slippery slope to exist.

Then you'd hate all psychological philosophy.

[SassyLady]

Then you'd hate all psychological philosophy.

Noir, where would you place this particular philosophy on the Overton Window?

[SassyLady]

I disagree with you that there is a liberal "agenda". There are a number of civil rights and anti-war movements that are considered "liberal" but they have nothing to do with eradicating personal responsibility.

Perhaps you could elaborate more on exactly what you mean and which liberals you are talking about.

Liberals aren't terribly organized into broad, groups. Conservatives organize by religion, and they are a big group with an agenda of policing other peoples moral choices.

Do you not think the LGBT is a group of liberals that are actively promoting an agenda of policing other peoples moral choices?

What about American Atheists....do you not see this group as a liberal organization with an agenda to police other peoples moral choices?

Do I really need to list more?

BTW ... I am conservative and I am not affiliated with any religion.

[Noir]

Noir, where would you place this particular philosophy on the Overton Window?

I'd say radical.

[SassyLady]

I'd say radical.

Today it is....but how soon before it become Policy?

[Noir]

Today it is....but how soon before it become Policy?

If you think that's going to happen fair enough, i don't, like i said, this is a point of philosophy, not unlike countless other similar arguments on what it is to be a 'person' and what is 'identity' dating back thousands of years.

[SassyLady]

If you think that's going to happen fair enough, i don't, like i said, this is a point of philosophy, not unlike countless other similar arguments on what it is to be a 'person' and what is 'identity' dating back thousands of years.

Question: when do you personally think "personhood" begins?

[Noir]

Question: when do you personally think "personhood" begins?

I have no idea. And the more i study philosophy the less i know.

[SassyLady]

I have no idea. And the more i study philosophy the less i know.

If you were "pregnant", when would you want it to begin?

[Noir]

If you were "pregnant", when would you want it to begin?

If my gf was pregnant (more likey lol) i would (i think) act as if personhood came into being at the moment i learned of the pregnancy, i.e. a few weeks after the conception,

but i'd have a very hard time convincing someone else who didn't think the same way that they should think the same, because there is no 'reason' for it as such.

[SassyLady]

If my gf was pregnant (more likey lol) i would (i think) act as if personhood came into being at the moment i learned of the pregnancy, i.e. a few weeks after the conception,

but i'd have a very hard time convincing someone else who didn't think the same way that they should think the same, because there is no 'reason' for it as such.

When I was pregnant my husband would tell everyone that "we" were preggars which is why I referred to it that way. I'm glad to see that you would immediately start thinking of your child as a person with an identity the moment you were aware of it's existence.

You are also right in that you can't convince everyone of this .... the bond/thread of connection to a child from the moment of being aware of it's existence is different for everyone, and unfortunately, has to be a personal experience....one that can rarely be passed on through discussion only.

When I was pregnant I felt no connection until I felt movement because we didn't have technology to "see". I was with my daughter when they did the ultrasound of my granddaughter and I fell in love immediately. You either connect or you don't, and I do not understand how anyone cannot connect at that early age and be immediately protective.

[Wind Song]

Do you not think the LGBT is a group of liberals that are actively promoting an agenda of policing other peoples moral choices?

What about American Atheists....do you not see this group as a liberal organization with an agenda to police other peoples moral choices?

Do I really need to list more?

BTW ... I am conservative and I am not affiliated with any religion.


There are people who advocate for marriage equality. Some of them are liberal, some are moderate and some are conservative.

I presume atheists also come in conservative, moderate and liberal colors.

Marriage equality doesn't take any conservative or moderates choices to marry away from them.

You are conservative. I don't know if that just means fiscally or if you're a right wing moralist.

I don't presume what your use of the term conservative means to you.

[SassyLady]

There are people who advocate for marriage equality. Some of them are liberal, some are moderate and some are conservative.

I presume atheists also come in conservative, moderate and liberal colors.

Marriage equality doesn't take any conservative or moderates choices to marry away from them.

You are conservative. I don't know if that just means fiscally or if you're a right wing moralist.

I don't presume what your use of the term conservative means to you.

My point being was to show you that liberals do, in fact, form in groups, even religious groups. If you do not want broad, sweeping statements made about liberals, I suggest that you rethink the way you categorize conservatives.

I don't put restrictions on myself about the type of conservative I am, just that I tend to land on the conservative side of most issues.

[Wind Song]

My point being was to show you that liberals do, in fact, form in groups, even religious groups. If you do not want broad, sweeping statements made about liberals, I suggest that you rethink the way you categorize conservatives.

I don't put restrictions on myself about the type of conservative I am, just that I tend to land on the conservative side of most issues.


There is no vast, left wing conspiracy. There are individuals with views that lean liberal. The idea that there is a giant, organized liberal organization is a projection by conservatives.

[SassyLady]

There is no vast, left wing conspiracy. There are individuals with views that lean liberal. The idea that there is a giant, organized liberal organization is a projection by conservatives.

And, there are no vast, organized conservative conspiracy.

However, how much do you know about George Soros?

[Wind Song]

And, there are no vast, organized conservative conspiracy.

However, how much do you know about George Soros?


Rupert Murdoch's rival?

Soros is a rich man whose politics lean left and he puts his money where his mouth is.

I'm a liberal and my agenda is to make life better for every individual in this country.

[OCA]

And, there are no vast, organized conservative conspiracy.

However, how much do you know about George Soros?

How much do you know about Rupert Murdoch?

[SassyLady]

How much do you know about Rupert Murdoch?

As much as I do about Soros, why?

[Wind Song]

How much do you know about Rupert Murdoch?

I know he owns the lion share of news media in the world. He is conservative.

[SassyLady]

Rupert Murdoch's rival?

Soros is a rich man whose politics lean left and he puts his money where his mouth is.

I'm a liberal and my agenda is to make life better for every individual in this country.

At what expense?

As for Soros ... his agenda is to collapse societies.

[Wind Song]

At what expense?


At the expense of every last drop of blood I have.

[SassyLady]

At the expense of every last drop of blood I have.

At what expense to others?

[Wind Song]

At what expense to others?

My blood, my expense. It may be worth nothing to you, but it's my most precious resource; my body, my speech and my mind.

[SassyLady]

My blood, my expense.

I don't think so ... I think you are willing to put other lives at risk in order to build the utopia you have envisioned.



I'm a liberal and my agenda is to make life better for every individual in this country.

[Wind Song]

I don't think so ... I think you are willing to put other lives at risk in order to build the utopia you have envisioned.


First of all, you made a leap about what "pure land" means to me. A pure land is NOT a utopia. It is the perfect conditions for enlightenment for all beings.

Your pigeon hole for me is based on your own ignorance.

[SassyLady]

What is the "liberal agenda" according to you? Do all liberals have the same stance on every issue?

Do you think the current OWS is a liberal or conservative agenda?

[SassyLady]

First of all, you made a leap about what "pure land" means to me. A pure land is NOT a utopia. It is the perfect conditions for enlightenment for all beings.

Your pigeon hole for me is based on your own ignorance.

You stated you wanted to make life better for every individual ... does that not mean that there will be sacrifices made by some in order to make life better for all?

[Wind Song]

You stated you wanted to make life better for every individual ... does that not mean that there will be sacrifices made by some in order to make life better for all?


If you want to know what I mean ask me. Don't assume you know.

[OCA]

As much as I do about Soros, why?

Because he is the conservative equal of Soros, just as coniving and evil.

The point is there are jackoffs on both sides, open your eyes and quit being so blind partisan.

[SassyLady]

If you want to know what I mean ask me. Don't assume you know.

Until you explain I will not know and will make assumptions based upon my own knowledge. Does not mean that my assumptions are incorrect. If you think my assumption is not based on enough knowledge then you should take the opportunity to put the additional information out there to be incorporated into future assumptions.

Sitting down and pouting will not accomplish this.

[SassyLady]

Because he is the conservative equal of Soros, just as coniving and evil.

The point is there are jackoffs on both sides, open your eyes and quit being so blind partisan.

Who said I was being a blind partisan? Have you ever heard me extolling the virtues of either man?

[Wind Song]

Until you explain I will not know and will make assumptions based upon my own knowledge. Does not mean that my assumptions are incorrect. If you think my assumption is not based on enough knowledge then you should take the opportunity to put the additional information out there to be incorporated into future assumptions.

Sitting down and pouting will not accomplish this.


Your assumptions are incorrect.

[SassyLady]

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Why should I accept your assertion....it's just your opinion, based upon your own assumptions.

[jimnyc]

Too many of the OWS'ers in NYC owned up to being liberal Democrats. Obama's "hope" poster was everywhere. And then they started doing drugs, and having sex, and shitting and pissing in the streets, and raping one another, and mugging one another. They made an embarrassment of any political party they may have advertised for, and they sure as hell made a mockery of whatever it was that was trying to be accomplished there. Maybe next time they can call in the adults to show them how to peacefully protest, or just ask for tips from the tea party.

[ConHog]

Congratulations to Windy for journeying all the way around the bend. :clap:

[Wind Song]

Why should I accept your assertion....it's just your opinion, based upon your own assumptions.


No point posting with you. You make up answers without being interested in mine. They are based on your own erroneous assumptions and opinions. Have fun with that.

[SassyLady]

No point posting with you. You make up answers without being interested in mine. They are based on your own erroneous assumptions and opinions. Have fun with that.

Typical....I thought you were the one going around telling people to post with you at their peril. Why do you refuse to engage with me?

Point out my erroneous assumptions...I'm willing to debate the errors....but you must point them out first and give me options to consider.

[PostmodernProphet]

If my gf was pregnant (more likey lol) i would (i think) act as if personhood came into being at the moment i learned of the pregnancy, i.e. a few weeks after the conception,

but i'd have a very hard time convincing someone else who didn't think the same way that they should think the same, because there is no 'reason' for it as such.


I think that's typical......everyone believes in personhood for the unborn until someone wants to kill it....then they pretend it's a mystery that cannot be known and turn their backs on the unborn......

[Wind Song]

Typical....I thought you were the one going around telling people to post with you at their peril. Why do you refuse to engage with me?

Point out my erroneous assumptions...I'm willing to debate the errors....but you must point them out first and give me options to consider.


You presume that when I talk about wanting to create a pure land that it is a "utopia" that YOU will have to pay for. Pure land is a spiritual concept.

You also presume that when I tell you that I will use every last drop of blood I have to create a better life for everyone that it is a big government program that you will have to pay for.

Again, this is a spiritual committment I'm talking about.

This topic is about the so-called "liberal" agenda. There isn't one.

[Shadow]

Typical....I thought you were the one going around telling people to post with you at their peril. Why do you refuse to engage with me?

Point out my erroneous assumptions...I'm willing to debate the errors....but you must point them out first and give me options to consider.

Because WS's agenda is similar to the "liberal agenda".. it's not to "engage" in discussions...just to shut them down.

[Noir]

I think that's typical......everyone believes in personhood for the unborn until someone wants to kill it....then they pretend it's a mystery that cannot be known and turn their backs on the unborn......

Well it is a mystery, i happen to have my 'answer' for it, i'm sure you have yours and other have others, but i can't say your opinion is in any sense wrong in the same way that you can't say the same of mine.

[fj1200]

I'm a liberal and my agenda is to make life better for every individual in this country.

I'm a conservative and my agenda is to make life better for every individual in this country.

[fj1200]

I'll post under the assumption that you'll be back to respond.


No point posting with you. You make up answers without being interested in mine. They are based on your own erroneous assumptions and opinions. Have fun with that.

You have stated that you won't answer all questions and if you don't then what is left? Assumptions.


This topic is about the so-called "liberal" agenda. There isn't one.

But there is. The question is if there is a group in a star chamber creating the marching orders. Of course the answer to that is irrelevant because there are those working to advance the "agenda" of government programs/regulations/etc. to alleviate what they see wrong with the country. BO has an agenda, Pelosi has an agenda... down to Fluke who has an agenda. It advances government as the solution.

[PostmodernProphet]

Well it is a mystery, i happen to have my 'answer' for it, i'm sure you have yours and other have others, but i can't say your opinion is in any sense wrong in the same way that you can't say the same of mine.

no, but I can say yours isn't consistent......that's usually a clue.....

[Noir]

no, but I can say yours isn't consistent......that's usually a clue.....

So tell me, oh consistent one, when does life/personhood begin?

[PostmodernProphet]

So tell me, oh consistent one, when does life/personhood begin?

at the point of an organism with a different DNA than that of either the donor sperm and egg.....though if you want, I'm willing to spot you the couple of days it takes for the zygote to attach to the wall of the womb.....

[tailfins]

What is the "liberal agenda" according to you? Do all liberals have the same stance on every issue?

You make a good point and it goes both ways. It seems too many people parrot ideology and turn their brains off. Our society is worse off for it. When I see someone almost exclusively refer to the Huffington Post or WorldNetDaily, I see either lazy or stupid. There's more to life than politics or ideology. In spite of disagreeing with their ideology, one of my favorite authors is featured in Huffington Post: That would be Robert Sutton, author of "The No Asshole Rule", see link below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-sutton/the-no-asshole-rule-part-_b_49678.html

That being said, I would say the OBAMA agenda is making satisfactory progress. I believe he hates this country enjoys seeing it suffer.

[revelarts]

Well it is a mystery, i happen to have my 'answer' for it, i'm sure you have yours and other have others, but i can't say your opinion is in any sense wrong in the same way that you can't say the same of mine.

Coming from an atheistic POV can you really say that anything is wrong though Noir?
Are there any universal standards for wrong in any area you think?

But besides that laws will be made anyway and someones standard is going to apply. If your basis for your opinion is sound then it might prevail, if you presented it. But it's not an academic question we can just be satisfied to have our own personal POVs on. Dr. baby killer proposes that the killing of newborns is Ok for disabilities, and economic hardship or burden. he also suggest the Specialist in those fields should be the arbiters.

I say the proposal is evil,
and that HUMAN life begins at conception, WHICH THE DR.s ADMIT. It's not only a religious fact, (though it agrees) Or a philosophical ideal, it's scientific fact. So what's the problem protecting life from there? It's a universally acknowledge beginning of human life. period paragraph end of story. what the problem?

If there are issues to deal with after life begins, fine, but pre-post birth murder should be off the table as a final solution here, it seems to me.

Personhood is a BS concept used to justify murder.

we don't need it for any other Human relations, legal or economic. Criminals are still considered "persons" even after convicted for crimes. the handicapped are "persons" , so far at least, but it's not a useful designation anywhere that i know of except in cases where people are looking for a justification or rationalization for killing.

[LuvRPgrl]

absolutely disgusting!

Slippery slope will eventually have not even having sex because it might produce a fetus....might as well kill the urge to have babies ....therefore, why not sterilize everyone?

In their perfect world, all but the elitists would be sterililzed,
then the masses will be happy cuz they can have ;unlimited sex with multiple partners, same gender or not, without the worry of pregnancy or abortion

For those who want to raise kids, they simply go to their locAl federal cloning facility and pick one out. fHowever, since its a clone, the feds have final say on how it is raised, because it is THEIR PROPERTY, and when fully grown, it has no rights whatsoever, since it is a product of man, and the COTUS states that the people's rights are god given.

The elitists will continue to have kids naturally, as they do need a ruling class.

[Wind Song]

What is the liberal agenda?

[jimnyc]

What is the liberal agenda?

That's mostly it, they don't stick with one, liberals make decisions on emotion and leave out common sense and facts.

[Wind Song]

That's mostly it, they don't stick with one, liberals make decisions on emotion and leave out common sense and facts.
Thank you for admitting there is no liberal agenda.

[jimnyc]

Thank you for admitting there is no liberal agenda.

They are much too stupid to set a proper agenda. They are fueled on emotion and make horrible decisions in life, and then want to go to Washington and apply these horrible decisions to the nation.

[fj1200]

What is the liberal agenda?

Growth of government as the solution and limits to economic liberty.

[Dilloduck]

What is the liberal agenda?


Feeling good immediately at someone else's expense.

[SassyLady]

What is the liberal agenda?

If you read the thread from the first post you'll know a little more about it.

Here's a little bit more:


The goal of people who call themselves Progressives. Well, the answer may have been provided by Walter Russell Mead.
In his commentary “The Progressive Crisis (http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/02/the-progressive-crisis/)” Mead states the folllowing:

A strong and active federal government is the cornerstone of progressive politics. If voters lose faith in the power of more government to better their lives, the progressive era has come to an end. . .
. . . The progressive state has never seen its job as simply to check the excesses of the rich. It has also sought to correct the vices of the poor and to uplift the masses. From the Prohibition and eugenics movements of the early twentieth century to various improvement and uplift projects in our own day, well educated people have seen it as their simple duty to use the powers of government to make the people do what is right: to express the correct racial ideas, to eschew bad child rearing technique like corporal punishment, to eat nutritionally appropriate foods, to quit smoking, to use the right light bulbs and so on and so on.
Mead goes on to say, “The progressive ideal of administrative cadres leading the masses toward the light has its roots in a time when many Americans had an eighth grade education or less.” Michael Barone replies, “That is still the mindset of the Obama Democrats. Ordinary people are treated as victims who need government programs like Obamacare to help them out.”*
Mead also writes the following:

Progressives want and need to believe that the voters are tuning them out because they aren’t progressive enough. But it’s impossible to grasp the crisis of the progressive enterprise unless one grasps the degree to which voters resent the condescension and arrogance of know-it-all progressive intellectuals and administrators. . .
. . . A growing section of the American population wants to think and act for itself, without the guidance of the graduates of ivy league colleges and blue chip graduate programs.

http://wizbangblog.com/2011/08/08/progressive-agenda/

[Wind Song]

Growth of government as the solution and limits to economic liberty.


I'm a liberal and that's not my view at all.

[Noir]

Coming from an atheistic POV can you really say that anything is wrong though Noir?
Are there any universal standards for wrong in any area you think?

There are universal standards, if you think religion has anything to do with them then you are way wrong IMO. If you think the only reason (for example) that tearing your children's eyes out at their birth is a bad thing because there is a god then it says more about yourself than anything else.


But besides that laws will be made anyway and someones standard is going to apply. If your basis for your opinion is sound then it might prevail, if you presented it. But it's not an academic question we can just be satisfied to have our own personal POVs on. Dr. baby killer proposes that the killing of newborns is Ok for disabilities, and economic hardship or burden. he also suggest the Specialist in those fields should be the arbiters.

I say the proposal is evil,
and that HUMAN life begins at conception, WHICH THE DR.s ADMIT. It's not only a religious fact, (though it agrees) Or a philosophical ideal, it's scientific fact. So what's the problem protecting life from there? It's a universally acknowledge beginning of human life. period paragraph end of story. what the problem?

If there are issues to deal with after life begins, fine, but pre-post birth murder should be off the table as a final solution here, it seems to me.

Personhood is a BS concept used to justify murder.

we don't need it for any other Human relations, legal or economic. Criminals are still considered "persons" even after convicted for crimes. the handicapped are "persons" , so far at least, but it's not a useful designation anywhere that i know of except in cases where people are looking for a justification or rationalization for killing.

How can you say personhood is a 'BS' concept? Surly you consider persons to have personhood, no?

Also if you study philosophy in even basic terms you will know that personhood applies to many discussions (say for Artificial intelligence, memory degeneration, identity cloning etc) which are nothing to do with 'justifying murder'.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm a liberal and that's not my view at all.

then maybe you arent a liberal.
do you support,
govt run health care
govt run welfare
gun control
tax the rich
govt in charge of creating jobs
EPA

[Wind Song]

then maybe you arent a liberal.
do you support,
govt run health care
govt run welfare
gun control
tax the rich
govt in charge of creating jobs
EPA

I support gun control. If we had gun control, that poor black kid wouldn't have been killed because he went to the store for skittles.

[LuvRPgrl]

I support gun control. If we had gun control, that poor black kid wouldn't have been killed because he went to the store for skittles.


that is a liberal agenda posistion. And as someone in this thread said, your opinion above is based on feelings, not facts, and quite frankly is wrong in the overall picture.
for every person saved by gun control, two are killed because of it.

Police agencies say they cant protect us from stalkers, but then tell you that you cant carry a gun to protect yourself.

[Wind Song]

that is a liberal agenda posistion. And as someone in this thread said, your opinion above is based on feelings, not facts, and quite frankly is wrong in the overall picture.
for every person saved by gun control, two are killed because of it.

Police agencies say they cant protect us from stalkers, but then tell you that you cant carry a gun to protect yourself.

That is my position. Like it or not.

[SassyLady]

That is my position. Like it or not.

Don't like.

[revelarts]

There are universal standards, if you think religion has anything to do with them then you are way wrong IMO. If you think the only reason (for example) that tearing your children's eyes out at their birth is a bad thing because there is a god then it says more about yourself than anything else.


not much of an answer, you just attacked my position. but if tearing kids eye's out is economically better why not. harvesting parts and cells of the unborn is going on TODAY. Why not eyes post birth?
it seems horrific to u today but thats just culture (or something, but not GOd given sense of Morals), until a kids is a "person" it doesn't count right?



How can you say personhood is a 'BS' concept? Surly you consider persons to have personhood, no?

Also if you study philosophy in even basic terms you will know that personhood applies to many discussions (say for Artificial intelligence, memory degeneration, identity cloning etc) which are nothing to do with 'justifying murder'.

I'm aware of the personhood dissucion concerning Artificial intelligence, memory degeneration, identity cloning etc.
-AI is not real yet, and the Only place where it might have some legitimacy
-ID cloning is not an exclusively personhood issue.
-memory degeneration is one of the areas where it's used as an excuse to dehumanize a person.
-etc.. is what, I think you've covered it.

Istand by my statement at this point it's used as an rational for murder.

[Wind Song]

Don't like.

No problem. We can still breathe air on the same planet.

[Gaffer]

I support gun control. If we had gun control, that poor black kid wouldn't have been killed because he went to the store for skittles.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[fj1200]

I'm a liberal and that's not my view at all.

Your positions as stated in other threads tell a different story. Nevertheless that is the end result of statements and goals as described by Democrat party leaders and activists.

[fj1200]

I support gun control. If we had gun control, that poor black kid wouldn't have been killed because he went to the store for skittles.

You have your talking points down pat I see.

[LuvRPgrl]

That is my position. Like it or not.

previously you said you arent a liberal,
but above, you do claim to be a liberal

r ;u confused
a liar
hypocrite

or do you have alzheimers

[LuvRPgrl]

No problem. We can still breathe air on the same planet.

Not if we are smoking.

[Gator Monroe]

One Planet One People ? (Oh Please):lol: