tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post4169075578631231452..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What is bioethics? Is Margaret Somerville a bioethicist or a Roman Catholic apologist?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20501747808051407042014-10-23T01:43:16.956-04:002014-10-23T01:43:16.956-04:00"What exactly is your problem with the applic..."What exactly is your problem with the application of Catholic ethical teaching to bioethics?'says mregnor to "Larry".<br />Here is MY problem with it : mregnor himself says that Catholic ethics are a 2000year old system BASED ON REVELATION and reason [how he reconciles reason with revelation is another huge problem ].<br />WHO did the "revealing" ? And to whom? Does anyone REALLY know?jennyfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14585648442016069029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-13784301954363820012014-06-14T22:46:13.539-04:002014-06-14T22:46:13.539-04:00The simple fact that anti-choicers haven't bee...The simple fact that anti-choicers haven't been kidnapped and tortured for Epic Poetic Justice proves that the pro-choicers have the moral high ground on the issue of voluntary euthanasia.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6l5-Rup-D4Winstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14029187310122412297noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54643348710446429242013-12-01T14:19:21.106-05:002013-12-01T14:19:21.106-05:00To which we can add November 25, 2013: Egnor clai...To which we can add November 25, 2013: Egnor claims Catholicism forms the basis of Western bioethics, argues euthanasia is a "sin" because it involves the killing as a "primary intent", and claims that Dutch doctors are now euthanizing babies because they are handicapped. In response to the fact that Catholic leaders have advocated the killing of heretics, among many others, he says this killing was justifiable and goes on to defend the Spanish Inquisition. When confronted with the hypocrisy of this argument, and the fact that his claim regarding Dutch doctors is a falsehood, he again runs off.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-11027762458837438432013-11-30T08:07:23.621-05:002013-11-30T08:07:23.621-05:00Yes. Euthanasia is a sin, according to mregnor, b...Yes. Euthanasia is a sin, according to <b>mregnor</b>, because it begins a slippery slope that could, maybe/possibly/conceivably, lead to people being euthanized for increasingly trivial or arbitrary reasons.<br /><br />But banning contraception, which as a demonstrable fact leads to deaths in the immediate present, is acceptable. That people's private sexual behaviour be in line with some convoluted theological theory seems to be a higher moral priority than whether they live or die. Such is the perversion Catholicism makes of the concept of morality.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47820198354321527932013-11-29T18:51:06.277-05:002013-11-29T18:51:06.277-05:00mregnor provides moral and financial support to a ...mregnor provides moral and financial support to a multi-national criminal cartel that is directly responsible for the deaths of 10 of millions by AIDS as a result of their evil policy against the use of sexual prophylaxis.<br /><br />A little misogyny and homophobia is just picking the gristle out of his teeth after a big meal. Just warming up for the main event.<br />steve oberskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14067724166134333068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26930866888659385642013-11-27T16:44:39.825-05:002013-11-27T16:44:39.825-05:00Diogenes, the Aquinas translation is not very good...Diogenes, the Aquinas translation is not very good, and the original sentence is much longer. Here is a link to the full text (<i><a href="" rel="nofollow">"Letter on the treatment of the Jews"</a></i> to Margaret of Flanders). I like this passage:<br /><br /><i>Thus, if certain persons are discovered from whom the Jews extorted usury, it should be restored to them. Otherwise, these usurious monies should be set aside for pious uses according to the council of the diocesan bishop and of other upright men, or even for the common utility of your land if a necessity looms and usefulness calls for it; nor even would it be illicit if you should require such usurious money from the Jews anew, preserving the custom of your predecessors, with this intention that the monies be expended for pious purposes.</i><br /><br />(Remember that the Jews "have nothing except what they acquired through the depravity of usury", so virtually anything they have can be taken from them and put to a pious use.)Piotr Gąsiorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36391577695581220662013-11-27T16:20:14.140-05:002013-11-27T16:20:14.140-05:00mregnor said:
"Catholic ethics is a 2000 yea...mregnor said:<br /><br />"Catholic ethics is a 2000 year-old system..."<br /><br />Yeah, a 2000 year old, maniacally cultic system of narcissism, murder, pedophilia, hypocrisy, greed, ostentation, lies, bigotry, sexism, conquest, domination, brain washing, theft, rape, cultural destruction, graft, barbarism, fear mongering, and every other despicable thing that scumbag humans do.The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-72671308501059555862013-11-27T15:54:08.507-05:002013-11-27T15:54:08.507-05:00mregnor said:
"In the Catholic view, intenti...mregnor said:<br /><br />"In the Catholic view, intentional killing (killing with the primary intent to kill) is always immoral."<br /><br />And:<br /><br />"If there is a non-lethal way to stop the aggressor, then killing the aggressor is illicit."<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the aggressor was that your chosen 'God' decided to "stop" by flooding the entire Earth and killing innumerable living things? Can't your allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect, loving, merciful 'God' figure out ways to stop ANY so-called aggressor without intentionally killing nearly everything or anything at all? And since your religion attributes the creation of everything to your 'God', that means that your 'God' must have created all of the aggressors that have ever existed and ever will exist. Bible thumpers like you claim that your 'God' did the flood thing and all of 'his' other intentional killings to eliminate 'sin', but 'God' created the aggressor 'sin' in the first place, and according to thumpers there's still a whole bunch of sinning going on. Obviously your so-called 'God' is at least inefficient, ineffective, and illicit. <br /><br />So, it boils down to you believing in, worshiping, and pushing a so-called 'God' that knowingly and intentionally creates aggressors and then personally kills or issues commands to kill certain aggressors depending on its mood, but a person choosing to die because they're suffering from a terminal, painful, disabling illness (that 'God' created) and asking for compassionate help to die, and getting that help, is illicit and just plain wrong, eh?<br /><br />The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-16921156321108397962013-11-27T09:13:18.065-05:002013-11-27T09:13:18.065-05:00I'll just add further that euthanasia, as the ...I'll just add further that euthanasia, as the term is usually used, does not violate mregnor's claim that one should not kill another person "as a primary intent" (which I actually think is a pretty reasonable moral principle, though "sin" has nothing to do with it.)<br /><br />In euthanasia, the "primary intent" is to spare another person from suffering that he himself has decided is unbearable, and to which death would be preferable. Killing the person is not the "primary intent", but the only means to accomplish the goal of relieving his suffering. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89235699568646417492013-11-26T21:19:33.547-05:002013-11-26T21:19:33.547-05:00This is what mregnor is talking about:
http://en....This is what mregnor is talking about:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groningen_Protocol<br /><br />As an aside, I wonder why mregnor seems to think if one supports assisting the euthanasia of terminally ill adults who are experiencing unbearable suffering and voluntarily choose to die, one must also support the euthanasia of infants? The latter is not an inevitable logical consequence of the former.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-31312101355749907342013-11-26T17:26:12.738-05:002013-11-26T17:26:12.738-05:00Smegnor claims that human life has "dignity&q...Smegnor claims that human life has "dignity", while-- like a typical Christian conservative-- asserting that not enough heretics were murdered by his Church. Smegnor is in fact invoking the doctrine "the ends justify the means" when he insinuates his Church should have murdered even more heretics.<br /><br /><i>"Heresy was a very serious matter in medieval civilization, because it had profound potential to cause social disruption and massive violence. It's worth pointing out that Spain was the only European nation spared the horrendous death toll of the wars of religion from 1524 to 1648. Did you remember to thank the Inquisition?"</i><br /><br />Leaving aside the problem that Smegnor assumes "correlation proves causation," and that he <b>ignores the genocide committed by Christian Spain in North and South America</b>, and that the wars of religion were about different sects of Christians killing each other over unprovable interpretations of imaginary beings-- even granting Smegnor's fallacious assumptions, he's invoking the notion that "the ends justify the means" to defend the Inquisition, on the grounds that, Christians really like killing each over theological disagreements, so you have to do a little Christian pre-killing to prevent a later, greater Christian hyper-killing.<br /><br />Smegnor: <i>"A wag might be tempted to point to Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot in the 20th century, and suggest that in modern times <b>too few, not too many, heretics were Inquired about.</b>"</i><br /><br />Ha ha! A historian (not a wag) might point out that Hitler wasn't a "heretic", that his regime was supported by American creationists in the 1930's, that the Nazi <i>Machtergreifung</i> was greeted orgasmically by almost all German Protestants in 1933, and the later <i>Anschluss</i> of Austria was greeted with "Heil Hitler!" from Austrain Catholic archbishops, etc. etc. etc. <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/02/pz-myers-cant-write-about-evolutionary.html" rel="nofollow">We already had this argument, and Egnor lost badly.</a><br /><br />Since Smegnor has brought up the topic of Aquinas, here's some more: Thomas saying that Jews deserve to be enslaved:<br /><br />“It would be licit to <b>hold Jews, because of the crimes, in perpetual servitude</b>, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.” [http://jdstone.org/cr/files/antisemitisminthenewtestament_1.html]<br /><br /><i>Arbeit macht frei</i> and all of that. Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14024265775088288772013-11-26T17:17:39.356-05:002013-11-26T17:17:39.356-05:00Do you support euthanasia of handicapped children?...<i>Do you support euthanasia of handicapped children?</i><br /><br />It scarcely matters, does it? Your position is that assisted suicide is wrong regardless of circumstance, which also includes the age of the subject. It should be just as wrong for an adult of 80 as it is for a child of 8 years or eight months. So if you can make a case that assisted suicide is wrong tout court, then your question becomes moot. Otherwise, you accept it in principle and we'll be merely haggling about the limits.<br /><br />Still, I'm willing to answer, but before I do I would like the same clarification that Diogenes does, because I at least see no reason to reject it out of hand and would therefore need to see how the concept is applied in practice. What specifically am I meant to be agreeing or disagreeing with? Crucial questions would need to be answered, like did the family consent and is the child self-aware, and if so was he or she consulted for his or her views and made to understand what accepting euthanasia would entail. If it's a case of doctors euthanizing a newborn at the family's request because the newborn had a major developmental disorder that would invariably kill it within days or weeks (e.g. anencephaly or cyclopia), that would strike me as morally a different matter than doctors deciding on their own account to euthanize a baby just because it might grow up deaf, for example.<br /><br />Now a question for you: do you accept that your picture of what the Nazis doctors was tried for and for which some were sentenced to death left out a <i>hell of a lot</i> of major Nazi crimes?Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78134576594885201652013-11-26T17:11:29.288-05:002013-11-26T17:11:29.288-05:00Ugh, is Smegnor capable of even the most basic log...Ugh, is Smegnor capable of even the most basic logic?<br /><br />Smeggie writes: <i>"Moral problem: homosexual acts are sinful"</i><br /><br />TOTAL non sequitur. What evidence is there that "sin" is coincident with "immoral"? It's like saying something is evil because Saddam Hussein disagrees with it.<br /><br />Smegnor's Middle Eastern war deity explicitly approves of, sanctions, or directly orders, rape, genocide, infanticide, and slavery. In the Bible, God gets mad when his people <i>don't</i> immediately commit genocide against God's non-people [Numbers 31]. <br /><br />If Smegnor wishes to declare the "sin" and "immoral" are coincident and equal, how could he possibly prove it? But if he could prove it, he'd wind up proving that <i>NOT</i> committing infanticide and genocide, and not sanctioning slavery and rape of war captives, are also immoral, so committing them is moral and sometimes mandatory.<br /><br />Smegnor: <i>Moral problem: single-sex parents deprive a child of a mother and a father.</i><br /><br />Uh, different-sex parents deprive a child of a mother and a mother, or of a father and a father. So who's deprived?<br /><br />And you know what else deprives kids of a father or mother? Death and divorce-- including death caused by Smegnor's god.<br /><br /><i>"Gee daddy, why did Mommy die on 9/11?"</i><br /><br /><i>"Because God needed a new singer in his choir, son."</i><br /><br />It's OK when God kills mommies and daddies and takes them away.<br /><br />And as for divorce, <b>conservative Christian creationist politicians are a spectacle of multiple divorces</b>. Newt Gingrich is on his third wife, and US Rep. Paul Broun ("All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell") is <b>on his fourth wife</b>, and <a href="http://www.salon.com/2010/08/31/will_bunch_the_backlash/" rel="nofollow">a deadbeat Dad; one of his ex-wives sued him for back alimony and child support</a>.<br /><br />Rep. Chip Pickering [R-Miss.], Sen. Larry Craig [R-Idaho], Sen. David Vitter [R-LA], Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN] are <b>all creationists, all guardians of public and private morality, and all were caught either with prostitutes or in adultery.</b> <i>Some creationists even commit adultery <b>with women!</b></i> Hard to believe, I know. If it's wrong to deprive kids of a mommy or a daddy, a lot of creationist politicians are guilty as hell, but God's done the most "depriving" of all.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24937758390402888732013-11-26T16:51:55.827-05:002013-11-26T16:51:55.827-05:00Since we have been visited by our friend Smegnor o...Since we have been visited by our friend Smegnor once more-- the only major ID proponent with the guts to come here and <i>get his ass kicked again and again and again</i>-- I will once again paste some links to previous arguments that Smegnor lost, badly, and ran away from.<br /><br />You Sandwalk regulars can ignore this list, as you've seen it before.<br /><br />Sandwalk, July 7, 2013: This one is particularly funny. <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/can-you-prove-that-gods-do-not-exist.html" rel="nofollow">Egnor says atheists are stupid and have never refuted such-and-such logical proofs of God’s existence, because atheists are not smart enough to understand them</a>. He invokes Aquinas’ proof of God, Leibniz’ and other “proofs.” Here he misspells Leibniz eleven [11] times. His opponents on the website easily refute these and other “proofs”—then they lay logical traps that Egnor comically falls into, splat! See especially <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/can-you-prove-that-gods-do-not-exist.html?showComment=1373421144834#c2387365766406901199" rel="nofollow">Jem’s “killshot” on God, comment of July 9, 2013, 9:52pm</a>.<br /><br />Sandwalk, Feb 11, 2013: <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/02/pz-myers-cant-write-about-evolutionary.html" rel="nofollow">Egnor says Nazis were atheists</a>. I copy in many quotes at great length to refute this. Egnor has no come-back. He arrogantly tells Piotr Gasiorowski, a Pole, that American Christians saved Poland by, uh, being brave and manly and praying hard, or something, and he demands obsequious gratitude from Piotr, who <i>actually</i> resisted the communist regime, unlike Egnor, who "resisted" in his mind. Egnor runs away.<br /><br />Recursivity, Feb 28, 2013: Here <a href="http://www.recursed.blogspot.com/2013/02/dembski-repeats-same-tired-nonsense.html" rel="nofollow">Engor tries to pass himself off as an expert on information theory</a>, at a blog run by... an expert in information theory! <i>Mistake!</i> Egnor copies in some jargon words he doesn’t understand from a Wiki page. Prof. Jeff Shallit, actual expert in information theory, points out that Egnor doesn’t understand the jargon he is using. I ask Egnor to copy and paste his equation for “information.” He runs off.<br /><br />Sandwalk, March 22, 2013: <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/03/on-effectiveness-of-ridicule-and-mockery.html?showComment=1363980186556#c1786016801577952325" rel="nofollow">I demand that Egnor answer the question he dodged a month before at Recusivity.</a> He runs off.<br /><br />Sandwalk, July 2, 2013: Egnor accuses Prof. Larry Moran of discriminating against Christian students, then <a href="http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-philosopher-trashes-junk-dna.html" rel="nofollow"> Egnor hypocritically claims no great scientist can ever be non-Christian</a>—“Essentially all great scientists were Christians, half were exceptionally devout” —insults all atheists in the most vile terms, then adds “My opinions are not vile”—then when confronted with evidence of his hypocrisy, he runs off.<br />Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-69076121103585550102013-11-26T16:39:24.410-05:002013-11-26T16:39:24.410-05:00Smegnor: kindly provide a link with evidence that ...Smegnor: kindly provide a link with evidence that Dutch doctors are euthanizing handicapped children <i>because they are handicapped</i>. Terri Schiavos don't count, and people with severe brain damage who are incapable of consciousness don't count, and people unplugged from life support by their family members <i>because they are in pain</i> don't count (although it would be interesting, it's not analogous to Nazi euthanasia.)<br /><br />Please present some evidence that Dutch doctors euthanize handicapped babies <i>because they are handicapped</i>, a crucial point being, whether the family made the decision, or the doctor.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71209987967116599732013-11-26T16:32:55.200-05:002013-11-26T16:32:55.200-05:00Smegnor: You have not answered Larry's questio...Smegnor: You have not answered Larry's question. Larry asked why agreeing to end one's own life is a "bioethics" question. You reply with a definition: "Bioethics is the application of ethics to biology... as regards human biology and medical issues." <br /><br />But Larry's scenario does not involve applying ethics to biology. Suicide, whatever it is, isn't biology. Not unless you define biology so broadly as to include all living and dying. <br /><br />If you define "bioethics" or "biology" that broadly, then choosing to eat a ham sandwich is biology and thus a "bioethical" problem, and we must consult with a professor to decide what to order at a deli.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6565980319468816592013-11-26T16:28:59.841-05:002013-11-26T16:28:59.841-05:00Smegnor: Bad analogy. In dueling, the probability ...Smegnor: Bad analogy. In dueling, the probability is 100% that one party will die involuntarily. Each party irrationally believes he will live while killing another, and each is not seeking death.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1280777578363218612013-11-26T16:14:06.883-05:002013-11-26T16:14:06.883-05:00Nullifidian:
Do you support euthanasia of handica...Nullifidian:<br /><br />Do you support euthanasia of handicapped children?mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4486081459473230932013-11-26T15:49:59.277-05:002013-11-26T15:49:59.277-05:00I missed this little gem from Egnor earlier:
Take...I missed this little gem from Egnor earlier:<br /><br /><i>Take note that Dutch pediatricians are euthanizing handicapped babies today-- the same thing the Nazi doctors were hanged for in Nuremberg.</i><br /><br />Yes, just the same thing exactly. All that other stuff the Nazi doctors did, like performing grotesque experiments on fully self-aware people without any hint of consent, primarily on Jews and Romani, was scarcely worth a mention. Your claim is so reductive that it verges on Holocaust denialism.Nullifidianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15207390447020990907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36211119213953448292013-11-26T14:56:20.046-05:002013-11-26T14:56:20.046-05:00"Just out of curiosity ... are you opposed to..."Just out of curiosity ... are you opposed to capital punishment?'<br /><br />Yes I am. Intentional killing of a human being is always wrong. <br /><br />Catholic teaching this is consistent and meticulously rational. In the Catholic view, intentional killing (killing with the primary intent to kill) is always immoral. <br /><br />There are situations in which killing is licit, but always regrettable. Those situations include self-defense, soldiers in wartime, police to stop a violent felony in progress, etc. <br /><br />In each of these situations, the primary intent is not to kill, but to protect innocent life from an aggressor. The killing is an undesired side effect of the intent to stop the aggressor. If there is a non-lethal way to stop the aggressor, then killing the aggressor is illicit. <br /><br />Before the advent of prisons for the long-term incarceration of criminals, capital punishment was at times necessary to protect society from exceptionally dangerous individuals. Since life imprisonment is an option in modern times, capital punishment is never ethical. <br /><br />You may or may not agree with Catholic ethics, but the assertion that the Church has noting meaningful to say about ethics is astonishing ignorance. mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-127377410454917512013-11-26T09:09:54.240-05:002013-11-26T09:09:54.240-05:00That's another interesting point I was going t...That's another interesting point I was going to bring up. I don't know what <b>mregnor</b> believes, but the Catholic Church currently takes a position against capital punishment. But, as I have already mentioned, Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest thinker in the history of the Church, condoned executing people for crimes as minor as forgery.<br /><br />So how does that work? Isn't Catholicism supposed to base its moral principles on the unchanging nature of God? Aren't those moral principles supposed to be eternal and immutable? <br /><br />So how did the great Aquinas get it so wrong? Did he just not know his theology all that well?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82805655386706044352013-11-26T08:04:26.618-05:002013-11-26T08:04:26.618-05:00@mregnor
Just out of curiosity ... are you oppose...@mregnor<br /><br />Just out of curiosity ... are you opposed to capital punishment?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-50834642978498439662013-11-26T07:22:07.275-05:002013-11-26T07:22:07.275-05:00What exactly is tyrannical here? The definition of...<i>What exactly is tyrannical here? The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman? Who knew that all civilizations in human history were tyrannies?</i><br /><br />Most of those civilzations, until relatively recently, also practiced slavery. Guess that means that's not immoral, either, right?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87069624658517077112013-11-26T07:19:41.517-05:002013-11-26T07:19:41.517-05:00Anyway, back to the main topic of this post, Marga...Anyway, back to the main topic of this post, Margaret Somerville.<br /><br /><b>mregnoe</b>, do you think she shares your view, that homosexuality and euthanasia are "sinful"? Do you think that is the reason she rejects these?<br /><br />If so, why do you think she doesn't come out and say this in her newspaper articles? Hmmm? Is it possible even she realizes these are unsound arguments?Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74969332789569225752013-11-26T07:16:57.228-05:002013-11-26T07:16:57.228-05:00I'm not an atheist and I don't want you an...<i>I'm not an atheist and I don't want you and your friends imposing your "ethical" views on me.</i><br /><br />And no one is. If you don't want to marry a man, no one is forcing you. Your Church is free to continue to discriminate against homosexuals by banning them from the priesthood and refusing to perform gay weddings. No one is suggesting doctors be forced to practice euthanasia if they choose not to. <br /> <br /><i>And Larry, if you're terminally ill and want to kill yourself, no one can or will stop you.</i> <br /><br /> Umm, but that's exactly what you're trying to do. Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.com