Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: catholics*

By: xcslewis in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Tue, 09 Oct 12 6:01 PM | 71 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix 		Msg. 10708 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 10677 by Cactus Flower)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Since we are suggesting decisions for which we have no understanding or authority, why stop there?

Any child older than 4 still believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny ought to be terminated. Since these are nominally religious figures it is most likely these children would be inclined toward fundamental Christianity anyway.

Perhaps that might be a bit harsh so we might grant an exception for those who continue to believe in the Tooth Fairy, like Paul Krugman and Ben Bernanke (not sure on their religious orientations but the tooth fairy thing is a given.)

We could then create jobs by hiring a new army of government employees to interview children and make the termination decisions. Each should have a corner office with a nice view and should be able to retiree on a generous government pension in their 50's.

I am sure they would all work very hard in these jobs doing this worthwhile and valuable work. They should also be paid for not working on all holidays including Christmas Eve and Christmas day.

They should be unionized since we don't want them to be forced to work too hard. No one likes coercion.

Of course union dues would be automatically deducted from their paychecks. Union leaders could then make the decision on which candidates to support.

Its really a good plan and win win for all concerned.


 - - - - -
View Replies (4) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: catholics*
By: Cactus Flower in ALEA
Mon, 08 Oct 12 5:21 PM 		Msg. 10677 of 54959

hi doma,

i agree this has been true. but the anglo saxon religious structures contain them fairly well.

i don't think these folks realise just how toxic their desire to remove people's decisions actually is. the desire for control over people with differing beliefs - especially ones that stir a passionate intensity - is what makes societies fill with hatred.

but take away the compulsion and there's nothing unreasonable about it. the choice of when life begins is pretty much what you wish it to be between conception and the ability to survive outside the womb.

for myself, i think the first trimester (or perhaps 10 or 12 weeks) is ample time to make a free choice; and the second trimester (stopping around 24 weeks/viability) is the time for things like protection of the mother, which also involves doctors in the decision (the mother making any decision about her own body, of course).

if a person doesn't wish to mother their child, adoption is a decent option. i don't think it is unreasonable to compel a person to carry a healthy foetus to term if they have failed to make their decision to terminate within a 2 1/2 to 3 month period.

there are two individuals with rights in play during the pregnancy. the question is, when do the foetus' rights begin? for me, the two main actors are travelling through a legal spectrum as the pregnancy develops.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next