The evil of the word “Nazi” is watered down by the flippant manner in which many groups toss it around to demonize anyone they don’t like. Besides that, the Nazi party, being a shortened form of National Socialists, is about as close to the polar opposite of the conservative / libertarian philosophy as you can get. They represented one of the most intrusive governments in history all the way up to committing genocide. I have never actually met a person who considers himself a Nazi. I’ve seen some weird webpages on the net but none that showed any signs of conservative viewpoints. I’m not saying there aren’t any out there, but just pointing out that Nazi groups are fringe groups at best. “Nazi” has become a universally recognized insult.

In contrast, there are many liberals who openly use terms like “secular humanism” to describe their philosophies and goals, or “communist” or “athiest”. I have two friends that I know are openly communist. This is a term they use to describe their political views, and those are just people I know personally. As a resident of L.A. and someone who visits West Hollywood regularly, I hear these terms frequently and casually in converstation. Those aren’t even derogatory terms except in context by someone who disagrees with those philosophies.

There is a HUGE difference between the two tactics. It is not intellectually dishonest to use any of these terms WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE.

That’s what I get for trying to engage a leftist in intelligent conversation.

I was just pointing out that because you already had decided what opinions I held, any reasoned arguments I might make are useless.

And Calarato, if you are still reading, this is why I don’t often engage or respond to rebuttals to my posts. It becomes pointless pretty quick and often becomes a waste of everyones time.

Because I said so.
And as you have said, everyone has a right to my opinion.

Dan,

To be clear, I am NOT referring the pill known as RU-486 or whatever it was. That is used to induce a miscarriage after a pregnancy had already been detected.

What I am referring to was the proposed move to make a version of “The Pill” available as an over-the-counter medication. It is called “Plan B”. If taken after sex it prevents ovulation or implantation taking place. It is already currently available by prescription, but it is a time-sensitive drug, meaning the sooner you take it, the better it works.

Anyway, Gryph, see if you can answer a simple, direct question without weaseling. In your mind, is it morally acceptable to use abortion as a form of birth control?

No.

Liberals don’t oppose “theocracy” per se. They merely oppose the defeat or dismantlement of their theocracy. (Atheist, socialist / leftist, secular humanism.)

He’s one of those lefties who believes that everyone has a right to his opinion.

You know, there is absolutely no difference between those on the Left that call everyone who disagrees with them Nazi’s and those on the Right that call everyone that disagrees with them secular humanist atheistic commies.

To me, that is a shocking statement. It means doctors are basically slaves. These good women and men of honor and skill can never say “No – I’ve had enough”, according to Gryph, without it being a crime.

That is a rather hysterical reading of my comment. I simply think that a doctor does not have the right to let a patient die in the emergency room because his religion tells him that the patient is unworthy of treatment. I’m pro-life, get it?

Yet Gryph is untroubled by … no, he literally advocates the Government forcing doctors to commit an act that they regard as morally equivalent to murder.

You are deliberatly misreading my statement, but yes, if an abortion is needed to directly save the life of the mother, then yes, he must perform the abortion. I really don’t think I’m out of the mainstream on this issue. Do you think an white supremicist EMT should have the right to refuse treatment when called to black Americans house?

You know, Gryph, the American Bar Association does permit lawyers to refuse to represent gay clients. You should look into that.

If a lawyer doesn’t want my money, thats fine with me.

There is a real difference here that you are not “getting”. Being a Doctor, Nurse, or EMT, is not just a job, its also a vocation. It carries with it a basic obligation to not turn away from someone who needs your help to survive an injury. I don’t think any good and ethical Doctor would have a problem with what I’ve outlined, even the Christian Conservative ones.

Which is consistent with Gryph’s #117 in which he states that people who disagree with him on same-sex marriage are morally, ethically, and factually wrong. Apparently, because he says so.

He’s one of those lefties who believes that everyone has a right to his opinion.

Let’s ask the question……Taken over from whom?

How can one speak of conservatives taking over any school board….unless it were true that the same board previously was taken over somebody else, who had denied an effective voice to that community’s conservatives?

And remember, we’re talking about boards “taken over” by conservatives who win elections – meaning that either the board’s previous occupants were not representative of the majority, or, there is a new majority.

It sounds awfully like these shocked and outraged liberals don’t care much for democracy, do they?

Let’s be more clear. When you boil it down, these liberals don’t oppose “theocracy” per se. They merely oppose the defeat or dismantlement of their theocracy. (Atheist, socialist / leftist, secular humanism.)

Don’t get me wrong: I agree Intelligent Design is poor, as scientific theory. It posits an “extra” agent not needed to explain the facts, and whose existence, properties and activity are in no way testable.

But that’s a side issue. Poor science will always be defeated in the end by good science; so ID theory doesn’t scare or horrify me.

It’s as if certain communities suddenly wanted to start teaching phlogiston theory, or astrology. It’s an uncommonly silly idea, but nothing to get all upset about. Not all communities will do it and the ones that vote it in democratically, deserve to have it.

Gryph is horrified at the slightest hint of a “Theocratic” Government. Presumably because such a government would use law to enforce the moral precepts of the religion it serves.

Yet Gryph is untroubled by … no, he literally advocates the Government forcing doctors to commit an act that they regard as morally equivalent to murder.

You raised a good point in your second paragraph on the requirement for doctors to treat any patient. As this is a more complicated topic than I have time to address at this time, I’ll have to same my thoughts for a future post.

I don’t think any doctor should be required to perform an abortion — even in taxpayer-funded hospitals.