War ends

The president has made it official. The Global War on Terror (GWOT) is over and is being replaced by what it should have been all along: a vigilant, forceful, counter-terrorism campaign against our nation's enemies. Gone soon will be Guantanamo, torture, renditions and extra-legal or illegal means of confronting our foes that have earned us the opprobrium of the world community.
***
Mr. Obama signed executive orders closing the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; ending the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret prisons; and requiring all interrogations to follow the noncoercive methods of the Army Field Manual.

“We intend to win this fight,” he said. “We are going to win it on our own terms.”

His actions on the second full day of his presidency won praise from human rights groups and Democrats in Congress, who said the new policies would help restore the United States’ moral authority. Mr. Obama invited to the signing ceremony 16 retired generals and admirals who had spoken out against what they called torture. Their passionate appeal to end harsh interrogations “made an extraordinary impression on me,” he said.

Mr. Obama’s orders struck a powerful new tone and represented an important first step toward rewriting American rules for dealing with terrorism suspects. But only his decision to halt for now the military trials under way at Guantánamo Bay seemed likely to have immediate practical significance, with other critical policy choices to be resolved by task forces set up within the administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/us/politics/23obama.html

While Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR200901...

No votes yet

be-headers have been released ONLY, to go back to doing what terrorists love, ie. to KILL MORE !! Said Ali-al-Shihri, Paki- terrorist ,was released last year and, has already been busy building bombs again and, killing even more innocents ! Apparently, Said Ali-al-Shihri , hasn't caught the addiction of HOPIUM , yet .

you're parroting the same old claptrap that the previous administration has been peddling for the past five years.
"According to a new study by Mark Denbeaux and his team at Seton Hall University School of Law, this was the Bush administration's 43rd attempt to quantify the number of detainees who have rejoined the battle. The previous 42 were no more impressive. The Seton Hall study shows that the administration's prior recidivist statistics do not even trend consistently upward—a 2007 DoD report downgraded the prior estimate of recidivists from 30 to five. The Defense Department has also been known to name as recidivists several individuals who have at no time been held at Guantanamo. Moreover, the Denbeaux study shows that the Defense Department defines speaking to reporters or publishing op-eds critical of Guantanamo as "returning to the fight." The point here is not that the data kept on the Gitmo detainees are all crap. The point is that we need to get past the tendency to cite statistical "facts" about the future dangerousness of these prisoners (and to use seemingly every available digit in the history of numbers in doing so) based on highly suspect Bush administration records."
http://www.slate.com/id/2209404/pagenum/all/#p2

you haven't seen recent news about an American drone , that just wiped out 11, of your throat cutting friends in Pakistan. What again , has CHANGED??!! And , you rely on a college poof , for your information??!! That's like counting on Bernie Madoffs',monthly investment forms to be, RELIABLE !! Maybe, you can sight another radical 60's, American hating prof., like William Ayers ,as the source of your lies. Slick Willy, comes to mind....I...I..I, did not have sexual relations...with...that woman...Monica..spluge, blue-dress,D.N.A.,Lewinsky !! What easy dupes you traitors are. The chickens...have come home...to ...ROOST !! GOD, I love that line !!

They're not MY friends. And as for "college poofs", if you don't respect knowledge and education then you will remain in the swamp of your bigotry and ignorance for the rest of your life. You are a real fruitcake.

attacks, never freed one American, hostage from having his head taken off ,appeaser spawn. Please though, comment on Zubair Ahmed and his brother, Khaleel, who were found guilty last week in Toledo, of doing what your friends love doing. ie. plotting to kill Americans, here and, abroad ! These two,'peaceful', would be killers, are to be added to the other 3 ,Toledo, terrorists found guilty last year of the same crimes.I thought you Hopium addicts , believed G.W., created terrorists. Your last name isn't Hussein, is it ??

I forgot to tell you that the brothers', Ahmed, are Pakistanis'. With a resident terrorist appeaser lurking nearby, commenting on how Paki's ,are very ,very,peaceful, I, thought this fact was pertinent . And, it was the 30th anniversary of Jimmy Carters' ,amnesty law,to Vietnam era , draft dodgers. What percentage of draft dodgers were Dims'. 1) 90 %, 2) 91 %, or 3) 92 % ? You will never guess correctly .

I can respect his decision but closing Gitmo is largely symbolic.

The terrorists will still remain detainee's just at other facilities.

For those hoping this would end torture will fail because when they are released to their home nations they will face interrogations and treatment more brutal than we gave them. They will be held as civilian criminals and thus will be given less rights.

However I hope as a consequence this isn't viewed as a sign of weakness by America. If it is then start accepting terrorism within our borders as a norm.

Plus I don't know how you can classify the GWOT as over while we still have forces actively engaged in Afghanistan. I believe ending the GWOT would make their actions illegal.

MikeyA

Said Ali-al-Shikri ,though. He was released to Saudi Arabia, who, somehow lost him,only to have him pop up in ,where else, PAKISTAN !! Home to the Mumbar killers !! Wouldn't you love to visit the lovely home of Hindu killers, Christian killers, Jew killers, and anyone , not Muslim ,killers ??!! I ,hear the food,beaches,and prisons are listed on Conde Nast ,as first rate !!

Ali al-Shiri wasn't released by Obama, you moron.

is captured as President Obama promised, does the USA only interrogate him following the noncoercive methods of the Army Field Manual? Or, do we Waterboard the SOB untill he talks like a trained parrot?

Slap on the wrist for killing 3000 innocents!

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

have a technique for getting answers along with revenge so quickly, it makes 'Gitmo torture' ,look tame as a mouse!! They call it ,'RECOMPENSE". It starts out where you are staked out on the ground ,spread out from all fours.THEN, your right leg is axed off. Quickly though, your 'stump', is packed with dirt, to prevent blood loss death. If answers aren't forthcoming, your left arm is axed off. And then again, quickly packed with dirt to prevent blood loss death. IF, you are still alive after that, the 'amputation', continues with the other limbs.IF, some how you survive having all four limbs cut off, you are then treated to a gut exposing cut, from your pubic bone , to your neck...and then are left to the crows. It worked well on U.K., killers of the Irish...BIG TIME !!

Have you ever entered the special olympics? Because you are retarded.

MikeyA

there to be sure.Question....didn't you crybaby about 'Joe the Plumber',and his taxes owed??! I , believe so. Now, look at our new Treasury Sec.,Timothy Geitner, who owes back taxes ,making Joe's, back taxes look miniscule by comparison! Where, is all the moaning and groaning about an accountant, invest advisor for Citibank,and NOW, Treasury Sec. and his back taxes and failure to pay them ??! Oh, he's a Dim., therefore, any and all excuses are acceptable ??! As a left wing bacterium, the double standard isn't apparent. If you do not comprehend this, thank a public school teacher !! I was a track and field coach for the Special Olympics, for 17 years. And what have you done for the Special Olympics?? MOCK THEM?? !! Typical bottom feeding scum !

It's my hope that he dies before we can catch him.

Reports are that he's sick. He's been in hiding for 4 years. His influence has been marginalized. Hell he won't even be videotaped anymore.

If we were to kill or capture him he again becomes a symbol. Al Qaeda recruitment goes up. Our job gets harder.

Whereas if he dies in hiding he looks like a coward and not like a martyr.

Likewise if we capture him then he again looks like he's defying America instead of running from them.

Yassar Arafat was lamented too. But he died naturally. His influence was marginalized. When he died he wasn't as revered as he was when he was fighting. His death was not symbolic and didn't have the affect of a "rally cry".

A natural Bin Laden death in hiding doesn't create copycats. As with the fall of the soviet union. Would we be defeating or enemy or creating many more copycats?

MikeyA

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_yemen_al_qaida

"CAIRO, Egypt – A Saudi man released from Guantanamo after spending nearly six years inside the U.S. prison camp is now the No. 2 of Yemen's al-Qaida branch, according to a purported Internet statement from the terror network.

The announcement, made this week on a Web site commonly used by militants, came as President Barack Obama ordered the detention facility closed within a year. Many of the remaining detainees are from Yemen, which has long posed a vexing terrorism problem for the U.S.

The terror group's Yemen branch — known as "al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula" — said the man, identified as Said Ali al-Shihri, returned to his home in Saudi Arabia after his release from Guantanamo about a year ago and from there went to Yemen, which is Osama bin Laden's ancestral home.

The Internet statement, which could not immediately be verified, said al-Shihri was the group's second-in-command in Yemen, and his prisoner number at Guantanamo was 372."

And why was Said Ali al-Shihri in Gitmo?
"Reports yesterday said the militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, was suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the US embassy in Yemen's capital, Sana, in September"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24954045-15084,00.html

Thanks, Obama and Dems. Another KNOWN killer of Americans is up to his old ways.

His next victims blood will be on your hands.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

...after. Some of these prisoners may be innocent, but torturing them has turned them into lifelong enemies. The only safe course is to execute them while the public does not know about it. Bury the truth for a generation (like we did during the Korean War), and then who will care?

Old South End Broadway

Ok. Gitmo has had 520 detainees all told. (250 are left)

Of those released 61 have returned to terrorism. That's about 12%.

Now let's say we assume 75% of the total detainees were actually conspiring with terrorists or were straight up terrorists. Leaving 25% innocent. (I believe that's a very fair number considering they were suspicious enough to get increased detention beyond just questioning.) That means 390 of the detainees had legitimate ties to terroism.

Still meaning only 15% have returned to terrorism or turned to terrorism.

That means 85% of those guilty gave up terrorism. I like those numbers.

MikeyA

What about this? "a 2007 DoD report downgraded the prior estimate of recidivists from 30 to five."

I don't quite understand what your trying to say Pete.

Can you elaborate further?

MikeyA

I'm just saying that instead of the 61 recidivists that have been cited, a DoD report from last year lists 5 (according to the article). I haven't seen that report and have no idea if that's what it really says.

I should have added a link. This was the story I got the # from. I initially saw it on Google news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE50C5JX20090113?feedType=RS...

MikeyA

I found this link to the US DoD that discusses this matter of the number of recidivists (37). But I counted only eleven confirmed and named "dead-enders" (to borrow a term) on the list, "Open-Source Reporting Identifies Detainees Reengaging in Terrorism."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/d20080613Returntothefightfactsheet.pdf
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/detainees.html

Here is the Denbeaux report.
http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_6160...

You immediately think that America is to blame for everything.

Here, for your convinence, is a list of the charges that Said Ali Al Shihri was WANTED FOR that led to his capture in 2001.

http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/372-said-ali-al-shihri

 

 

 

 

There are 5 more pages. Do I have to post them too? Or do you finally believe that this guy was an America hating terrorist BEFORE he was captured and sent to Gitmo?

Or do you actually think that he was an innocent guy standing on a street corner drinking a lattte' before the EVIL AMERICAN IMPERIALIST PIGS turned him into what he was in 2001 and jailed him with no evidence.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

As I see it, the problem is that the fmr administration didn't want these punks to go through our legal system and they didn't want to adhere to international laws either. So they created this fantasy island where only they called the shots. But now they screwed themselves (or more accurately, screwed us) because no courts will touch them, due to the fact that many were tortured. So by doing the very things they said were making us safer, they're putting us at risk. They should have stuck by the law in the first place.

Pink Slip

The Bush administration released this man in 2007, without trial -a decision made by political appointees, not judicial review - and handed him over to the Saudis who let him walk.

" Some very bad people are likely to walk free along with the innocent because the Bush administration tried to walk around domestic and international principles of law, creating an entirely spurious new designation of “unlawful combatant” so that they could either hide detainees from due process indefinitely or, failing that, conduct kangaroo courts.

If they’d just stuck with the existing definitions, all the Gitmo detainees against whom they could build a real case under the actual rules of law, without torture and without rigging the courts, would have been tried...already. If found guilty, the death penalty would have been warranted in some cases. I would personally have had no problem with that."

what I read this morning,along, with other reports. Apparently, Pete-boy, only reads the Toledo Blade , for his 'accurate', regurgitation's of blatant lies ! That, along with believing, wacko ,far left, America-hating profs', who are so dunce, Pete , buys what they are selling just like he bought ,"hope and change', scat, spread by someone who cannot even take care of his close family kin, living in GHETTOS !! A sucker is born everyday and Pete-Pol Pot, is licking it up like he did on that absolute lie B.O. put out about CHANGE !! UPDATE: B.O., has just killed more innocent throat-cutters in Paki-land, bringing today's total to......18 !!

Doesn't any one see the hypocrisy of Obama's position?

It's wrong for the U.S. to "torture" enemy combatants, yet torturing "unborn babies" and "partially born babies" is beyond "his pay grade."

One thing that you can bet your life on though, you will soon receive hate-filled responses from the regular, America-hating, business-hating, freedom-hating, terrorist LOVING, jackasses that blog here. That include , senseless-childish,ad-hominem attacks, sentence structure critiques,calls for you to take mind altering prescriptions,and the one I love the best, is cry-babying to the web-master , to CENSOR you !! All from the very, very, very, COMPASSIONATE ,brain dead liberals !!

That Obama says, "First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture…

But then he does this:

“President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-governmental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.”

How bizarre that he is not willing to torture our sworn enemies...but he is so willing to make sure we continue to torture our unborn babies...and now at tax payer expense. 40 million babies murdered since abortion became legal 36 years ago compared to several hundred of our enemies tortured?

Not only is Obama a fool and a liar....he is also a hypocrite and baby murderer.

If we could just convince these young mothers to birth their young, and give them up to the state (unless they really want them) we could institutionalize and raise millions for the defense of our country. What opportunities abortion has cost this country. These young mothers are, in essence, traitors to their country. If these young children are going to die for their country they should do so on the battlefield, not as they leave the womb.

We have to make it as easy as possible for these illegitimate children to brought into the world where they can serve a useful purpose. We have to take the responsibility for their upbringing out of the hands of the careless young girls who bore them, and put them into the hands of the state. We can begin to point them in the right direction as Sparta did their young. Rather than being cast off as human trash they can serve a useful purpose to the state.

Old South End Broadway

...rulers of Romania outlawed abortion. One of the concerns was the affect on the state if women did not wish to bring life into an intolerable society.

Perhaps we should eliminate abortion totally, and take our chances with what will occur. We have had little luck with "safe harbor" laws, and perhaps there will only a small increase in infanticide in our culture. Sometimes it is hard to tell when murder occurs.

I remember reading a book about how in the Middle Ages mothers of newborns were encouraged to take their newborn infants to bed with them, and many of the newborn died from "overlaying". Church records showed astounding rates of death to newborns from mothers "overlaying" their children. And the Church did not find this odd, but rather something "natural". Eliminate abortion, and accept the increase in infanticide.

Old South End Broadway

JayOtt comports himself like a decent human being, Phakit Mann/Mike Coon. He doesn't threaten, attack, or denigrate those with whom he disagrees.

Unlike you.

And I suspect the last thing JayOtt would do is to taunt and threaten a 70-year-old retired doctor who just went through a brutal attack just because he had political differences with him.

Like you did with Dr. Hussain.

Perhaps you should review your own hate-filled and abusive posts to understand why other posters here have so little respect for you.

Only the kooky religious right would try to connect the country's torture policy with a woman's right to privacy

Pink Slip

well said, pink slip.

Your use of the word "kooky" is not a valid argument. In fact, that is how the Blade editors argue by assuming what they are trying to prove or when they merely assert that something is "poppycock."  People who usually argue this way in an academic setting would fail.

Besides, I wouldn't call the arguments in the Declaration of Independence "kooky":

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Because if you call the signers of the D.I. "kooky" you would have to admit that you are living on the "inherited capital" of those "kooks." If the State is the one who grants the rights, then the State can take them away and they're not unalienable.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legally binding document. The CONSTITUTION of the United States is the definitive, effective instrument. No where in that constitutional document is God mentioned.

I never said the D.I. was a legally binding document. Had I known that its legal status would become an issue while I was responding to the claim that arguments are invalid because they're "kooky" if their based on religion, I would have included that disclaimer.

I thought everyone here already knew that the D.I. was not legally binding.

Nevertheless, the signers held and reflected a particular "religious worldview" about where rights come from.

I think my point still stands. if someone is going to solely argue on the basis of "kookiness" merely because it reflects a religious worldview, then it follows that the signers of the D.i. would also have to be considered kooks.

My use of the word "kooky" wasn't intended to present a valid argument. It was name-calling, and it was warranted. I am surprised someone with your impressive mental stature would mistake this as an attempt at a valid argument. But perhaps I give you too much credit.

It is interesting, if not ironic, that you choose the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" quote as some sort of argument against abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court found that the right of privacy exists within the Fourteenth Amendment's "concept of personal liberty". So you could argue that the right of privacy is also unalienable.

Pink Slip

Your name-calling may have been warranted, but without evidence it is an ad hominem attack and therefore, unjustified.

O.K., so "the Supreme Court found that the right of privacy exists within the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty"--so what?

The question remains whether or not a woman's personal liberty should include the right to deprive a human being of its life in the name of privacy or whether or not human life is assigned value on the basis of its utility or human life has its own intrinsic moral worth.

People exercise their liberty by doing all kinds of things in private--things which are legal and illegal. But just because they are legal or illegal doesn't mean they are ethically or morally right.

The question remains whether or not a woman's personal liberty should include the right to deprive a human being of its life in the name of privacy or whether or not human life is assigned value on the basis of its utility or human life has its own intrinsic moral worth.

If this is the question, then it is far too personal, complicated, and important to be decided upon by the state. It's not to be answered by you, me, or Uncle Sam

Pink Slip

If people believe that its "beyond one's pay grade" or that people are incapable of making that determination of whether all human life or merely some human life has equal moral value without regard to its "size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency" (1), then what should the laws of our society be based upon? 

Why shouldn't all laws be abolished where the problems seem to be "far too personal, complicated and important to be decided" by individuals and gov't?

Why shouldn't all laws be abolished where the problems seem to be "far too personal, complicated and important to be decided" by individuals and gov't?

I didn't say that some problems are "far too personal, complicated and important to be decided" by individuals and gov't. Just gov't.

Pink Slip

Sorry, my mistake. I didn't intend to misquote you. When you said, "you and me", I thought it would be o.k. to substitute the word individuals for "you and me."

I can understand the mistake, but I quite literally meant "you and me". I'm assuming by your name that you're a male, and thus will never get pregnant. So, it's possible that a woman would include you in a decision like this--but ultimately it's her call. Not you, me, or the gov't

Pink Slip

According to the law as it is now, indeed "it's her call." It's obvious what the "call" is, but the question is why should it be her call if it takes or deprives a human being of life?

Do human beings only have moral value if they are wanted? Or because they're unwanted, they have less value and should therefore be allowed to be destroyed?

The real reason that women choose to take the life of another human being, is because it's an easy way to avoid the consequences of being irresponsible. In that regard, they are just like the "bailouts".

One last thing, if these abortions are being funded in whole or in part with taxpayer dollars, then I think that "you and me" and everyone else has the right and the responsibility to "hold gov't accountable" for having to pay for the irresponsiblity of others.

I myself have made irresponsible decisions, so I'm not saying I'm better, but I don't go around expecting some sort of bailout either.

It's difficult to say this without sounding callous about human life (and I'm not saying anything that everyone doesn't already know). But when a fetus is in the womb, it is entirely dependent upon the mother. It's not an individual life form--it's part of the woman's body. Only the mother is suited to make decisions at this point--no one else, unless she asks others for input of course. Only she can reconcile her decisions with her own sense of morality and religious beliefs.

The real reason that women choose to take the life of another human being, is because it's an easy way to avoid the consequences of being irresponsible

This statement is either irresponsible, or you aren't familiar with rape, incest, etc... But I do understand your point about taxpayer dollars being used.

Pink Slip

It's not an individual life form--it's part of the woman's body. Only the mother is suited to make decisions at this point--no one else, unless she asks others for input of course.

For the sake of discussion, suppose that despite the fact that the fetus is small, not fully developed, inside its "mother's womb" and dependent on her for its survival--that it is human. Then would you agree that it has a right to live rather than be forced to die?

If the fetus is human and there was a way to prove that it is a human being, then why shouldn't anyone not want to protect human life? If it's a human being, why is it wrong to be in favor of life over the woman's so-called right to privacy?

It's interesting that you use the term "mother". How can a woman be regarded as a mother unless what she is carrying is genetically human? Calling the pregnant woman a "mother" presupposes (to use an archaic term), that "she is with child". Practically at no time during its development is a fetus genetically a non-human since only human beings reproduce human beings, not pineapples or anything else. 

When a woman miscarries, yet the baby is the intended and the desired outcome, a miscarriage is generally considered a bad thing, traumatic and emotional. Why? Because it's self-evident that a real human life was lost and everything else associated with that life.

If a human fetus is merely another body part like tonsils, then why do people mourn their loss in the case of miscarriages? Losing teeth, tonsils, and tumors, are not the same as denying a human embryo its right to live. Teeth, tonsils, and tumors do not have their own DNA independent of the body they belong to.  But human embryos and fetuses do have their own DNA.

On the other hand, when women decide to have abortions, it's because they don't want a baby and the responsibilities associated with a child. Assuming they're not ashamed of their lack of responsibility for how it happened (exception of rape and incest) and assuming they will tell others, then what they are really saying is, "I am no longer pregnant . I don't have to worry about being responsible for taking care of a baby. I don't have to pay for diapers, food, toys, college tuition, weddings--not a thing. I don't even have to pay for the abortion itself. The government pays for it. I won't be tied down, I'm free. I won't be 'punished with a baby.' "

Any intervention which stops the development process of the fetus is to deprive a human being of its life. Instead of giving the benefit of doubt to that human life, it is presumed that the woman should have the right to choose whether it lives or dies. What if that presumption is false?

So what is the basis of the law that permits a woman to choose whether or not the human fetus should be allowed to live or forced to die? How is a law which allows it, ethical or moral?

Isn't it possible that the Supreme Court made a bad decision about Roe v. Wade? It really comes down to human life being more valuable than being allowed by law to avoid personal responsiblity (exception of rape and incest) and accept the full consequences of one's behavior.

 

Is this how we want to use gov't? What's next, policing the woman to make sure she eats right, avoids alcohol, cigarettes, etc? Where would you draw the line jayott? After all, wouldn't it be immoral to knowingly put the fetus at risk with an unhealthy lifestyle? What of miscarriages? Are we going to force the woman to prove it wasn't something intentional?

I'm pretty sure when philosophers discussed the concept of liberty, they were speaking of individuals. I have a hard time considering a fetus to be an individual when it is entirely dependent upon the woman.

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." --Ayn Rand

Pink Slip

From Pink_Slip: If this is the question, then it is far too personal, complicated, and important to be decided upon by the state. It's not to be answered by you, me, or Uncle Sam

Well said.

My observation is that the controversial arguments most often involve one side insisting on forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, and even if the rest of the US is in complete agreement the people of the United States do not like being told what to do. It isn't about he issue; it's about control.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Kooz, one isn't the other. Just deal with it.

Abortion has been legal since 1973 and it should have been legalized before that.

Anyone who wants to divert federal funds from stem cell research should go talk to a paraplegic or quadriplegic first. Make sure you explain the success scientists have had reconnecting the spinal cords of lab rats, then explain your arguments about abortion, life beginning at conception and the rest of it. I'd recommend staying out of arm's reach while you perorate, but that's really up to you.

The federal government should have been using a bulldozer to shovel money into stem cell research for the past 8 years, and failed to do so. Now maybe we can make up for lost time.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Stem cell researchers are a special interest group.

So, if "the federal government should have been using a bulldozer to shovel money into stem cell research for the past 8 years", then how can this be squared with Obama's inconsistent position that removing all special interest lobbyists from D.C. was the right thing to do?

In the same way a ham sandwich can be squared with a telephone pole.

Seriously, Jayott, I don't have the faintest idea what you're getting at.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

dare want a dose of truth
future generations will see our dismemberment
of preborn babies as bizarre and barbaric. And we want to stop the 'torture ' of terror suspects...

here is that some of you are defending a woman's right to abortion based on The Constitution and laws made by men. I don't mean this in a judgmental way....but, God does not operate according to the laws of men...We will all find ourselves before God on the day of judgement....to think that we will say to God...."Yes, I sinned, but the U.S. Constitution allowed me that right," and think God will excuse it for that reason is ludicrous.

Kooz, I know this isn't news to you--but not everyone believes in your god. Therefore the laws he/she may impose on you are not imposed on me or others.

Pink Slip

If you are Catholic you probably believe the unchristened child or fetus goes to limbo. If you are protestant then you might believe that a fetus, baby or young child goes to paradise since it has no conception of sin. If s/he had been allowed to live until the age where s/he knew right and wrong s/he might have had a better chance of going to hell if s/he did not repent of her/his sins. Its all confusing to me: a guarantee of heaven or limbo if you are young enough, and a certainty of hell if you do not repent when of a certain maturity. Ain't God wonderful. He gives us desires that we are not supposed to act on. Maybe the Roman way is better; no abortion, just exposure to the elements if the "pater familias" does not accept the child. The Roman conservative way might be better.

Old South End Broadway

I don't think knowledge necessarily "depends on what one believes". Rather, it depends on how so-called true beliefs are justified i.e. on what basis these beliefs are held.

The degree to which something is true or false, certain or uncertain, is independent of an individual's belief.in them. One example of this would be: E=mc2 was true before Einstein discovered it or was able to demonstrate why it was true.

...truths only occur because we are here to deduce them. The universe exists, but the "truth" of E=mc2 is only true to those who deduce it. And, in fact, there are those who question this "truth". The above formula is only a feeble attempt to bring rationality to the universe, otherwise "string theory" would not hold the interest it does to mathematicians and physicists.

Old South End Broadway

Kinda like what purpose did zero serve in ancient mathematics?

1/1=1 (You have 1 cookie to divide by on kid, how many cookies does each kid get? One

0/1=0 (You have zero cookies to divide by one kid, how many cookies does each kid get? Zero)

1/0=? (You have 1 cookie to divide by zero kids, how many cookies does each kid get?)

Hmmm… If a 1 tree falls in the woods and zero people are around to hear it, does it make a sound? If “yes”, the answer is 1, if “no”, the answer is 1, if the answer is a philosophical conundrum, the answer is “?”. (Using binary to answer the question – yes or no would be “something”, therefore = 1; but no response does not necessarily equal zero.)

Apparently anything divided by zero actually equals infinity... But they also said Pluto was a planet until last year. If we get enough people to sign a petition stating that anything divided by zero equals corn-dog, I think we could change mathematics as we know it.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

...would be true whether there was, or was not, a god, or gods. That this logic does not depend on a supreme being, but rather is a logic dependent on a rational mind for its analysis. Or am I (or i) wrong.

Old South End Broadway

Let's go back to your assumption that:

"the "truth" of E=mc2 is only true to those who deduce it."

In my example, I was referring to all truth in general, not specifically to Einstein's physics.

So, let's look at the coherence of the statement:

"the "truth" is only true to those who deduce it"

The statement itself is a "deductive statement". But in order for the statement to be true, it would have to be "deduced" but in order for it to be deduced, it would be only true for those who deduce it, but if it would only be true for those that deduce it it would only be true for some and not others.

Meaning that "truth" or knowledge wouldn't be something "out there" to be discovered objectively, it's whatever an indivdual hopes, feels, and wants it to be.

The statement that "truth" is only true for those who deduce it" is self-defeating because its circular.

Truth refers to a statement that reflects reality. Reality is what exists outside our intellect and independently of it. Truth exists within our intellect in as much as we refer to what really exists. Otherwise we either lie or are mistaken.

Knowledge is dependent on the belief that the world is knowable. That belief is a priori, antecedent and effective of any further knowledge and science.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

defeating. For those who believe in God there is no problem with describing an omnipotent being who is eternal even though every child asks, "Who created God?". To me to believe, and define God requires circular reasoning, and yet those who believe engage in it willingly. All faiths have their God that is true only to them, not to those who have other gods. Certainly God seems quite different from Allah, and yet these are supposed to be the same being. Perhaps those who "deduce" God, and have written the sacred text that reveal them to the masses have colored this being through various tribal and cultural beliefs.

Old South End Broadway

>>to believe, and define God requires circular reasoning, and yet those who believe engage in it willingly. <<

Strictly speaking from a philosophical position in regards to the issue you've raised, rather than from a particular theological view:

You would be correct about circularity if your description is accurate.of the situation about "who created God"?

But I have to seriously question whether or not you have spent any time looking at the classical arguments philosophers have worked out for and against theism.

Why? Because it seems to me that you aren't at all familiar with at least two forms of the cosmological argument which attempt to answer this particular question which of course presumes you are trying to get some sort of plausible answer.

The two arguments are:

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2 The argument from contingency

Both of these arguments basically get to the same conclusion that God is a "necessary being", the "first cause", the "uncaused cause."

...current physics) that the universe is in a flux of creation and destruction continuing for many "kalpas". This measure of time is thus: Imagine a gigantic rocky mountain at the beginning of kalpa, approximately 16 x 16 x 16 miles (dwarfing Mt. Everest). You take a small piece of silk and wipe the mountain once every 100 years. According to the Buddha, the mountain will be completely depleted even before the kalpa ends (from "Kalpa" in Wikipedia). The above description is perhaps more lyrical than "scientific" but it fits the rational better than some I've seen.

Now the reason I bring this up is that it seems more rational (even without "scientific" evidence) than that the world was created on Sunday October 23, 4004 BC (according to Archbishop Usher). It might also be more rational to assume that the "destruction" of the Universe might give rise to its successor after a few kalpa.

Old South End Broadway

So this must be what the vacationing Brian Wilson means when he encounters "aggressive ignorance."

Perhaps I am guilty of this, but I've always found Mr. Wilson to have problems with his own "tunnel vision".

Old South End Broadway

these different types of abortion methods. If you can know this information and think its not murder or that as a society...we will not be held accountable...then I digress.

Suction Aspiration: “General or local anesthesia is given to the mother and her cervix is quickly dilated. A suction curette (hollow tube with a knife-edged tip) is inserted into the womb. This instrument is then connected to a vacuum machine by a transparent tube. The vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded.”

Dilation and Curettage (D&C): “This method is similar to the suction method with the added insertion of a hook shaped knife (curette) which cuts the baby into pieces. The pieces are scraped out through the cervix and discarded [Note: This abortion method should not be confused with a therapeutic D&C done for reasons other than pregnancy.]”

Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): “This method is used up to 18 weeks gestation. Instead of the loop-shaped knife used in D&C abortions, a pair of forceps is inserted into the womb to grasp part of the fetus. The teeth of the forceps twist and tear the bones of the unborn child. This process is repeated until the fetus is totally dismembered and removed. Usually the spine must be snapped and the skull crushed in order to remove them.”

Salt Poisoning (Saline Injection): “Used after 16 weeks (four months) when enough fluid has accumulated. A long needle injects a strong salt solution through the mother’s abdomen into the baby’s sac. The baby swallows this fluid and is poisoned by it. It also acts as a corrosive, burning off the outer layer of skin. It normally takes somewhat over an hour for the baby to die from this. Within 24 hours, labor will usually set in and the mother will give birth to a dead or dying baby. (There have been many cases of these babies being born alive. They are usually left unattended to die. However, a few have survived and later been adopted.)”

Prostaglandin Chemical Abortion: This form of abortion uses chemicals developed by the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Co. which cause the uterus to contract intensely, pushing out the developing baby. The contractions are more violent than normal, natural contractions, so the unborn baby is frequently killed by them — some have even been decapitated. Many, however, have also been born alive.

Hysterotomy or Caesarean Section Used mainly in the last three months of pregnancy, the womb is entered by surgery through the wall of the abdomen. The technique is similar to a Caesarean delivery, except that the umbilical cord is usually cut while the baby is still in the womb, thus cutting off his oxygen supply and causing him to suffocate. Sometimes the baby is removed alive and simply left in a corner to die of neglect or exposure.

Partial-Birth Abortion: Five steps to a partial birth abortion:

Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s legs with forceps.
The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal.
The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head.
The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the skull.
The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.
(Abortion procedure information taken from LifeSiteNews)

In the majority position of the Supreme Court decision (pp.7-8) that upheld the ban on Partial Birth Abortion Justice Kennedy made reference to this description of Partial Birth Abortion by a nurse who participated in the torture:

“Dr. Haskell went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal.Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus. . . .

The baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startle reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he is going to fall.

The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. . . .

He cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”’ ”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.