ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

qb -- you'd best hang it up right now, mate. You can't compete with a constitutional lawyer. The terms used by swdowning aren't generally found outside of constitutional law. He has game, you have platitudes. Your platitudes are good ones, to be sure, but they're not going to hold up here, mate.

bobjerunkle | 10/05/08

bob, I understand your ideas, but I have a question, and maybe it isn't quite appropriate here, but if the two of the combatants would entertain a question, here it is: how can republican's say that abortion is wrong because life is sacred, and at the same time favor the death penalty?? If life is so sacred, then execution is the moral equivalent of abortion.

maxserendipity | 10/05/08

maxserendipity: Great point! Why don't you start a Face Off on that issue?

swdowning | 10/05/08

qb - you're outgunned. You're in way over your head. What comes through is your disdain for standards to which we all should be bound, coupled with a lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court. Your world view is one of "whatever feels good, do it; all of the rules can be re-written to achieve my agenda; and if I decide to hate you in the name of tolerance, then who are you to say I can't?" It's all about you, isn't it? You belong to the self-centered class. How dare we challenge you? Well, there are those of us who will, and who do. Because, believe it or not, it's not all about you, you stupid child.

bobjerunkle | 10/06/08

that's pretty harsh bob

breakthecycle | 10/06/08

There is a point to be taken at the notion of survival of species is endangered by the message of acceptability encountered within the alternative life decisions that detract from the gross form of procreation for survival theory. Overprocreation is adding to the falling of many species including our own. Resources are becoming more and more scarce. At least 25% of all mamillians are in danger of becoming extinct. Yet, in all of humanities wisdom, you say that we should follow the lead of the religious and bring more and more humans into the mix. Great Idea...and when Earth has been ravaged of more than she can give, what then?...Mars? We (our civilization) are like a bad space movie with a species of alien parasites that take all there is from the planet and move on to the next. Do you actually think there is an endless supply of everything ? What is it that drives you to think in this extraordinarily selfish way? Our laws are made by us aren't they...and if they aren't, shouldn't they be? Shouldn't the focus of humantiy be on the true survival of our species and not some notion brought by an overt moralistic zealot that imposes all the chains known to man upon us? Where are you trying to guide us and for what purpose? Your punditry falls far short in the laws of mankind. I'm truely sorry swdowning, you appear to be quite intelligent, however it appears misguided. I hope you can reflect on your musings and see the day.

peaceplease | 10/06/08

oh bobjerunkle, your zealotry is noble but misguided. You are no better than I, and yet you resort to namecalling to reinforce your "point," and I use that term quite lightly. Truly, your ignorance is appalling, my friend. I don't recall saying that I should have supreme authority over the policies of America, but rather, I question the facade of authority that the government wields in terms of a citizen's personal life. Your beliefs should not be force-fed to free people, and in another life, you could very well have been a tyrant. Your wild accusations are unfounded and unlinked to my arguments, so try coming back when you have something intelligent to say, instead of giving me the attitude of an upset child.

qbpuck321 | 10/06/08

The problem with Republicans is they really do contradict themselves, they say they are for prolife but then support executions and the war. How many people have died in this war and why don't these lives that have been lost count ? Some are inocent women and children the prolifers will call that colateral damage, thats not prolife. Republicans are really not prolifers and part of there problem is they cant admit it. The first step to recovery is to stop denying.

jhnedrmr | 10/09/08

jhnedrmr: Let's not lose sight of the real issues. No-one is "anti-life" or "anti-choice." The terms we use to discuss abortion, "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are both misleading. The issue isn't whether we approve of choice or life. We choose things every day, and these choices wouldn't be possible without life; these terms are both lacking. The issues are whether we favor legalized abortion on demand, and whether we think that the Supreme Court had the right to decide Roe v Wade. Abortion on demand is really what we're discussing when we hide behind "pro-life" and "pro-choice." What you imply is that there is no legal or moral distinction between abortion on demand and deaths that occur on a battlefield. You want to paint conservatives as hypocrites because we recognize a moral and legal distinction among the various conditions under which humans are killed. First-degree murder is legally and morally different from killing someone in self defense, or to prevent him from murdering someone else. There are relevant differences. Most people get this, so I think you advance this notion at the peril of being taken seriously.

swdowning | 10/09/08

First of all I liked reading this debate, but it seemed to have elavated to a level beyond the basic idea presented. I may be presenting my ignorance, but the amount of jargon, while very eloquently written, in swd's rebuttal's makes me question his stance. Yes, their was a rebuttal to the original argument, but then the argument was clouded a paragraph or two later, never focusing on a main point. And then at the end swd decided that qb never backed up his point, which was orginally clouded by swd. Or I think that is what happened, though I am still not clear. In plain speak, I read that the conservative party does not contridict their small govenment agenda with roe vs. wade because they are merely fighting agaisnt abusive supreme court rulings, but gay marriage is a different matter, because its natural to be against it, but republicans really aren't against it anyway. Why do I feel like nothing was cleared up? Or maybe its because I am not familiar with words like "vires" and "arbiter."

LIberalesque | 10/09/08

I really enjoyed reading this debate until the last sentence of the last paragraph of swdowning's closing argument. I really liked the way SWD presented the argument in a level very logical way. To be honest those were some of the better arguments that I've read regarding these subjects. The tone of the argument was very civil IMHO on both sides. some really good points were made by both sides. I don't understand why SWD would throw in the towel in an argument that he appeared to be winning by injecting some random Right wing rhetoric. I found those comments to be totally self destructive to an otherwise great argument.

Trouble99 | 10/09/08

swdowning : Most people get this? So now you will talk for most people? Which people get this? You mean the people that you suround yourself with and only agree with you? This is Republican Conservative arogance. I can tell you are better at writing then me and probably smarter too, but it doesnt make you right , your denying the fact that killing and murder in the battlefield isnt the same thing, killing is killing, period. Conservatives do not recognize what is moral just because they are against abortion, they never talk about what to do with unwanted children, would you adopt one yourself? Why did they make abortion legal in the first place? From what I have heard and read over the years is that women will not stop getting abortions if it where illegal, they will go to chop shops and some women will end up dead too, and they will become desperate and try to perform abortion themselves, I prefer a controlled and sanitary environment where a professional doctor will perform the procedure correctly, that is moral. Now talk about all these unwanted children, do Conservatives think about how many unwanted children there will be if we make abortion illegal? I have never seen any facts on this, there must be a number somewhere to show the population of unwanted children, and what would we do with all these children that nobody wants? That doesnt seem moral to me. I wasnt talking about first degree murder, dont try to sidetrack the issue, I was saying your against abortion but you support war that kills, killing is killing, it is a contradiction. Abortion is a moral necessity, war isnt necessary.

jhnedrmr | 10/09/08

Homosexuality is a luxury afforded by heterosexuality? Really? That's how it works? So once we rack up enough of your "procreation points" we can all "afford to be gay"? Exactly how overpopulated do we need to be before we can "afford" this "luxury" of yours? Instead of the restrictive "one house, one child" policy, China should have instituted a "Lucky Lesbian Luxury Lottery" All the winners "get" to be gay married because the extra procreation of their forefathers has "afforded" them this "luxury."

bigweb14 | 10/09/08

I thank all of you who have weighed in on this, and I will attempt to address every point you've raised.

swdowning | 10/10/08

Liberalesque: I'm sorry that my initial response to qb seemed to cloud the issue. What I wanted to convey is that the issues qb raised aren't easily addressed, but require a familiarity with the constitutional issues qb raises. "Ultra vires" means "beyond one's jurisdiction." In this case, I employed it to convey that the Supreme Court had not the right to decide Roe v Wade, because unenumerated rights are reserved to the states or the people. An "arbiter" is one who is empowered to decide legal issues without resorting to the courts. The difference between Roe v Wade and gay marriage is that the former has been addressed by the SC, while the latter hasn't.

swdowning | 10/10/08

Trouble99: At the time I made my admittedly vituperative comments, I had already lost the debate. Thanks for the kind words; sorry that the logic intrinsic to my position failed to sway those whose agendas are less determined by ratiocination.

swdowning | 10/10/08

jhnedrmr: You raise some great points. Yes, most people get that not all killing is morally equivalent. Most people, in my experience, do recognize a moral line between cold-blooded murder and self defense; between death on a battlefield, and death in a doctor's office. As to the conservative objection to Roe v Wade, you need to realize that if the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it would not make abortions illegal. It would merely return the issue to the individual states; it would then be their call. In 1972, when Roe was decided, most states were in the process of legalizing abortion. The judicial conservative's objection to the Roe decision is that the SC thus claimed the power to invent rights, and to create law on that basis. This upsets the checks and balances upon which our system is based, and renders the legislative and executive branches very expensive superfluities. But the most interesting point you raise has to do with your concept that all killing is morally equivalent. It isn't. And you don't believe it is, even though your political agenda requires that you claim otherwise. How do I know that you don't believe your own propaganda? In your final sentence, you say "Abortion is a moral necessity, war isn't necessary." Although I disagree with your distinctions, the fact is that you recognize distinctions. Your own world view recognizes a moral distinction between different types of killing.

swdowning | 10/10/08

Bigweb14: Your reductionism is cute, but not particularly germane. My point is that the survival of our species requires that most of us be heterosexual, and that we reproduce. If most of us were exclusively homosexual, the human race would eventually become extinct. For us to survive, most of us need to engage in normal sexual activity. The fact that there is sexual activity that results in life (is "life" driven) and there is also sexual activity that cannot produce life (is "non-life" driven) raises the question, "Do different forms of sexual expression have different success rates in the survivability of a species?" If being gay were the norm, we would cease to exist. Normal sexual orientation is required for us to continue. Hence, only if most people engage in normal sexual activity can homosexuals indulge their abnormal proclivities without curtailing our species' existence.

swdowning | 10/10/08

swd-- I'm tired, and I suspect I may have misread your post. I've read some of your other posts and they almost always merit consideration. The writing is spectacular. Survival of our species does not require that we be heterosexual. It requires that we know how to create life, and, as you said, that we engage in normal sexual activity to this end. Homosexuals have had procreative sex throughout history, and they still do. If most of us were exclusively homosexual, then most of us would be exclusively homosexual. And life would go on. Humans would still procreate, and population would still grow. Your survivability of a species argument is absurd. Our species is able to figure things out for ourselves, like how to procreate-- whether or not we enjoy the act. If other species??? populations were predominantly homosexual, then those species may or may not figure out how to procreate, and their survivability rates would diminish possibly to extinction. Extinction due to homosexuality has not yet been observed in our world. The survivability argument also defies middle school mathematics. Population growth has not been arithmetic since the first family began procreating. Population growth rates become almost instantly geometric, then rapidly exponential unless and until a catastrophic event occurs. This is a rather silly argument to posit. It smells of a religious argument cloaked in faux scientific rationalism, a moral argument disguised as logical one. The argument could hold sway, I guess, if you believe in Creationism. In that case, you can successfully argue that, if Adam and Eve gay (and awfully lonely) and also unwilling to procreate, then survivability of our species would've been dead in the garden.

Kattman | 10/10/08

Kattman: Thanks for the kind words. My argument is not based in, nor does it cloak, a religious agenda. You say that homosexuals have had procreative sex throughout history. This might be true, but they have not had procreative homosexual sex. Which is my point. Also, I do understand the exponential nature of population growth; but for that growth to be exponential, it must be overwhelmingly heterosexual. For how long could it remain exponential if sexual activity were predominantly homosexual? Also, if there were the possibility that most sexual activity was homosexual, it would have been a factor back around the time of arithmetical expansion; it wouldn't have to contend with a previously established exponential population growth that was due to heterosexual activity. And, I submit, the survival of the human species would have been doubtful. The overriding point is that it's a good thing that we don't have to rely on gays for the continuation of the human race. If we did, we'd be doomed. Normal sexual activity is the way to go.

swdowning | 10/11/08