So where's that piece of paper stupid?

The idea of combining two flawed philosophies to make a better philosophy is a bit shaky, don't you think?

FFS.. Bush has nothing to do with the legislation concerning the Schiavo case at this point. If people will take time to learn about our government, the bills are in the House and Senate. Once (if) they are passed, then they are sent to G.B. to be signed or vetoed. At this point he is signing off on what the MAJORITY of the House and Sentate passed. The bills are asking for Federal Court review of the case, something her parents haven't had an opportunity to see. They have asked for Supreme Court Review but have been denied. These bills would force this case and others like it to be reviewd by the Federal Courts at some level. Even condemned prisoners are allowed Federal review of their cases.

Now with that I believe she should be allowed to die although I think some form of euthanasia would be preferable to the death she will suffer this route. IMO her cognitive level is so low she probably can't even understand her situation or comprehend reality. What the parents want is more time to see if Terry can be treated with newer technology and I'm sure they personally wish to keep her alive as long as possible. It probably won't help but the husband hasn't allowed any formal level of treatment for her. It's odd that he hasn't been wanting to see if she can be rehabilitated at all.

What makes no sense is when Libs say it's ok to suck an innocent baby, even in late term sometimes and mainly for birth control, but don't want to execute heinous killers. Personally I'll side on the side of the innocent over the guilty who had their chance. And I do believe abortions are ok if the mothers health is at risk, I just don't think aborthions should be a widely used form of birth control like it is now.

If people are so pro-life for killers why are they pro death in other situations? Seems contradictory.

directed @ tnf

Strict naturalism is not an extreme. Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify. Such as actively refuting the existance of god, the supernatural soul, and other things supposedly outside the realm of the natural world. In such cases they can only assert possible superfluousness, or in the case of God, that he remains an unnecessary hypothesis not required to exist as far as we know by the natural world. That's far from a refutation of God's existance, or even a valid assessment of the likelyhood of his existance. So therefore a scientific position on God's existance would remain agnostic, as science remains agnostic to all hypotheses until evidence is brought forth to refute or bolster the claims made. Where supernatural beliefs make claims upon the natural world, they can be tested somewhat by science.

I'm simplifying the issue, God and gods are many things to many people. The spectrum can run from a deistic god to a god of major religions.

FFS.. Bush has nothing to do with the legislation concerning the Schiavo case at this point. If people will take time to learn about our government, the bills are in the House and Senate. Once (if) they are passed, then they are sent to G.B. to be signed or vetoed. At this point he is signing off on what the MAJORITY of the House and Sentate passed. The bills are asking for Federal Court review of the case, something her parents haven't had an opportunity to see. They have asked for Supreme Court Review but have been denied. These bills would force this case and others like it to be reviewd by the Federal Courts at some level. Even condemned prisoners are allowed Federal review of their cases.

Now with that I believe she should be allowed to die although I think some form of euthanasia would be preferable to the death she will suffer this route. IMO her cognitive level is so low she probably can't even understand her situation or comprehend reality. What the parents want is more time to see if Terry can be treated with newer technology and I'm sure they personally wish to keep her alive as long as possible. It probably won't help but the husband hasn't allowed any formal level of treatment for her. It's odd that he hasn't been wanting to see if she can be rehabilitated at all.

What makes no sense is when Libs say it's ok to suck an innocent baby, even in late term sometimes and mainly for birth control, but don't want to execute heinous killers. Personally I'll side on the side of the innocent over the guilty who had their chance. And I do believe abortions are ok if the mothers health is at risk, I just don't think aborthions should be a widely used form of birth control like it is now.

If people are so pro-life for killers why are they pro death in other situations? Seems contradictory.

In fact all students have to sign a statement before they arrive, confirming, among other things, that they have a literal belief in the teachings of the Bible.

This reminds me of a BBC article I read a few weeks ago about a college aimed at far-right homeschooled Christian children, available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/c ... 311709.stm

One choice tidbit:

...
A literal belief in the Bible is not a bad thing, because the Bible has not been shown to have any error or fault.

Evolution is what worries me. Nobody who looks at the true evidence with an open mind can honestly believe that the earth is millions of years old, and that man and monkey are kin.

Man was made in the image of God. Look at the accomplishments and advances made by primates and compare them with human accomplishments. Pretty different, aren't they?

Which explains the reason for this better, creation or evolution? You decide.
Rick McDonnell, Illinois, United States
...

Which explains the reason for this better, creation or evolution? You decide.

directed @ tnf

Strict naturalism is not an extreme.

Sure it is...though I guess it would depend how strict your strictness is and what is precisely meant by 'naturalism'.

Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify. Such as actively refuting the existance of god, the supernatural soul, and other things supposedly outside the realm of the natural world.

Only if by strict, you mean to actively refute that which they cannot test, verify, falsify.

It is extreme in the sense that it is making an assumption, not proven, about the ways in which knowledge can be obtained.

shut it jackass...

Nice example of your intelligence and broad range of vocabulary, actually lack there of. Please pester someone else with your idiocy.

I'm a liberal, and not for late-term abortion. You won't find a lot of us who are (I'm sure there are some). Even fewer who are in favor of late-term abortions as a means of birth control. I'm not for abortion at all, TBH, but I think it skews the issue to say "pro-death" in many cases. In fact, many people simply want doctors to have the right to make medical decisions in the extreme cases where an abortion might be required to save the life of the mother. And I believe there is a lot of angst towards the administration regarding this issue because the laws being looked at are moving towards preventing docs from having that ability.
It was like Bush asking Kerry if he was for or against abortion as a yes or no question...and Kerry saying he was for doc's having the right to make that decision, which was not given in the bill he did not vote for (the bill about partial birth abortions.) But Bush didn't want to hear WHY he didn't vote for it. He is a binary president - Yes or No. Good or Bad. Us or Them. But those issues are not always binary in their possible solutions. Kerry could have responded to Bush "Yes or No, are you for or against war?" Then followed up with how he must be for it, because he authorized it..

These are all grey areas, all very difficult to really legislate.

go fuck urself u fat fuck...any questions?

I also feel that Kerry would not restrict any form of abortion. He can't. He must be supportive of the party's platform of "allowing a woman to choose".

Bush, as Governor, signed in a bill that allows hospitals to pull the tubes/plugs on hospital patients in vegetative states. Even if its against what the family wants.
And guess what?
A baby had this done this very week, in Texas, against the parents wish.

http://www.dailykos.com/section/Media

Yanks are so dumb they cant see that they are the clowns of the world now.

HAHAHAHAHAHA BUSH
HAHAHAHAHAHA AMERICA

Thank fuck they are the butt of jokes now instead of you chavs, eh?

Strict naturalism holds that the examining of the natural world is the only way in which we can obtain any knowledge. It is extreme in the sense that it is making an assumption, not proven, about the ways in which knowledge can be obtained.