K.M.: Glad I can entertain you. Sorry for the mis-speak, but you get the point. So, if everything victimizes someone, what do you propose we do?

I’m libertarian, after all, not contemporary liberal.

“I don’t believe liberalism victimizes anyone. I was simply using that to refute the idea that chillin presented that conservativism victimizes people.”

Both liberalism (note comments 5 and 11) and conservatism (as long as it is tries to institutionalize religion) victimize people.

It’s a touch draining to discuss these things when the only responses that I receive are either generalizations or unsupported claims (i.e. evolution has been proven beyond dispute…really? and deeming opposing views irrational and silly just because you don’t agree, or butchering the Creationist view to make it appear illogical)

I wasn’t referring to a dynamic physical difference between the fertilized and unfertilized. The huge difference is the ability for the fertilized egg to become life.

And the slippery slope comes because you are taking the choice away from the choice-less. You stated that you don’t believe people should be forced to live a life in pain, but where do we stop? You said coma’s with the possibility of recovery, so why not unborn children with the possibility of a sucessful life? The start does not have to determine the end.

Samuel: I don’t believe liberalism victimizes anyone. I was simply using that to refute the idea that chillin presented that conservativism victimizes people. I am pretty moderate in the grand scheme of things, and really avoid politics at all costs. Really this has been a hypothetical discussion because I follow whatever laws are instituted by the government.

I realize that conservatism does not mean Christian. I actually posted that on the happyconservative blog, but I dont think that post is there anymore. I merely used Christian examples because those are the ones I see my students encountering. Youre right, liberalism also victimizes pagans, Jews, Muslims etc. hehe

Actually, yeah, conservatism almost almost amounts to Christianity, or some form of theism

As to creation, I’m not so sure that you get to be the authority on what is or is not science. There are many in the science field that hold to a creationist or I.D. view of the universe’s beginning. As to evolution being proved beyond dispute…really?

It’s not a science. This is the scientific method:
Ask a Question
Observe & Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

Here is the method used by creationism:
Invent a conclusion
Observe things that at least seem to support your conclusion
Make false or fabricated observations
Communicate your results

It’s not science.

Concerning your discussion on abortion, don’t you think that the child should at least have a shot at life? Even a crappy one? Second, there is a distinct difference b/t a fertilized egg and and unfertilized egg. And for your examples of natural termination, I’m not so sure that’s a good road to travel. What about senior citizens that will eventually die of old age, couldn’t (and shouldn’t) we just kill them to help along the process? Since people die naturally everyday, is murder really all that immoral?

There’s a huge difference between a senior citizen with an active nervous system and a developing baby that can’t even feel anything or think.

Again, any time you aren’t having intercourse, you are probably dooming some poor “potential life” to destruction through menstruation. Murder!

Well, not really, but it’s the same irrational, silly mindset that makes someone fiercely antichoice.

Liberalism does NOT victimize those people- it is a bit like claiming liberalism victimizers prisoners or Nazis. They choose that stance and action- actions and beliefs that are immoral and wrong.

Yes, evolution has been proved beyond dispute.

The origin of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.

Science does have to meet certain standards. Science refers to the process they use. It has to be testable, falsible, empirical, repeatable… these are the basis. ID fails ALL of these criteria.

No. Why should everyone get a crappy shot at life. Forcing someone to live in pain is NOT good.

No there isn’t. Fertilized eggs have more genetic material and start dividing. That isn’t a huge difference- most of the cells in your body are like that.

Murder is immoral. Just because people die doesn’t mean that helping them along is good. You are referring to a slippery slope, but the cutoff here is consent (or for coma’s and the like chances of recovery).

I realize that conservatism does not mean Christian. I actually posted that on the happyconservative blog, but I dont think that post is there anymore. I merely used Christian examples because those are the ones I see my students encountering. Youre right, liberalism also victimizes pagans, Jews, Muslims etc. hehe

As to creation, I’m not so sure that you get to be the authority on what is or is not science. There are many in the science field that hold to a creationist or I.D. view of the universe’s beginning. As to evolution being proved beyond dispute…really?

Concerning your discussion on abortion, don’t you think that the child should at least have a shot at life? Even a crappy one? Second, there is a distinct difference b/t a fertilized egg and and unfertilized egg. And for your examples of natural termination, I’m not so sure that’s a good road to travel. What about senior citizens that will eventually die of old age, couldn’t (and shouldn’t) we just kill them to help along the process? Since people die naturally everyday, is murder really all that immoral?

Most of your other objections are ones angryxtian has raised (not to draw a comparison, as that would be just plain heartless). You have to understand that liberals are not necessarily atheists. Most are Christian. And it’s not like Christians are restricted from doing something that is fine for Muslims, Pagans, Jews, or any other religion that may want to get into the schools.

As for creationism, it is not science. Hell, it’s not even pseduoscience.

It has no place in a science classroom, unlike evolution which has been proven almost beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Is it oppressive to teach a history lesson on the Holocaust in a classroom that has some neoNazi Mel Gibson wanna-be in it, who says it never happened? His own worldview contradicting with reality is no reason to overlook the reality.

As for your antichoice comment, I think it’s a little silly to act like aborting a baby that shouldn’t be born (wouldn’t be raised right, would be neglected or malnourished, was conceived during a rape, etc.) is the only time that eggs are neglected life. Menstruation cleanses a woman’s body of many unfertilized “potential lives.” Is it wrong for her to menstruate then, since some of those unfertilized eggs could have been little babies if she had just had sex more? Or what about the fertilized eggs that abort themselves in the womb? Basically, any waking, capable moment where you are not having intercourse, you are probably denying a baby life.

As to liberal “victims” if you want to put it that way, you have to list Christian students who are ostrisized and scoffed at for their beliefs? I mean, if teaching Creationism victimizes those that do not believe it, does teaching evolution not victimize the sector that does not believe in it? You also have to include unborn children who are denied the right to live don’t you? We have no greater civil right than the right to have a shot at life.

As to #6…that’s kind of a new one to me.