Posted on 09/29/2001 7:44:31 AM PDT by Joe 6-pack
1. If, conceding the liberal argument, homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, and a test becomes available to let expectant mothers know if their, "fetus," is predisposed to homosexuality, should that mother be allowed to abort the "fetus," on that basis?
There is no valid basis for an expectant mother decide to abort her gestation.
If she would abort a "homosexual fetus," does that constitute a "hate crime?"
Because a fetus is prepubescent, it cannot have a sexual orientation; hence, this question lacks any basis.
Does preventing her from doing so impose on a woman's right to choose?
A woman's right to choose is not at issue here. If she did not wish to conceive a child, she should not have engaged in such activity that would result in such conception. I fully support the right of all women everywhere to choose to refrain from such activity.
2. If we were not meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?
This question is irrelevant because we were meant to eat animals and still are an omniverous organism. I cannot recall the origin of the word "meat," so I will not comment further on the irrelevant question.
3. Suppose you and one other person were shipwrecked on a desert island, not under the jurisdictional law of any state and/ or country. Is it morally right for that person to kill you, or you to kill that person to stretch the food supply?
No; killing people is always wrong. Furthermore, the question lacks validity because not such island can exist within the framework of international law. Moreover, this technique is not likely to promote the survival of either party; you will need a new food supply shortly thereafter.
If not, what makes it morally wrong?
Insofar as I can tell, not a single major world religion allows killing of innocent life in such a situation. And mine certainly doesn't. Insofar as I can tell, societies where cannibalism has been practiced acceptably within the past century, few though they may be, did not condone the killing of people for the purpose of consumption.
4. If sexual activity of any sort is "ok," provided it is between consenting adults, does this include incest between children over 18 and their parents?
Such activity is not acceptable except between married persons in a monogamous relationship. Insofar as a parent and child cannot marry one another, this sort of activity is wrong. Moreover, it's disgusting.
If not, why?
Parent and child cannot marry because it almost universally is acknowledged as wrong. It also contributes to genetic problems.
Why not... 17? 16? 15? 14?
In this society, persons should attain the age of majority before marrying. Human lifetimes are sufficiently long to allow the prospective partners to become emancipated from their parents at 18. They still have plenty of years left to enjoy themselves together, procreate, and rear children--and grandchildren.
5. If the government can arbitrarily set the minimum wage at $5.35 an hour, why not set it at $200.00 an hour?
One word: inflation. So now you make $200 per hour, but a loaf of bread costs $40 and a gallon of milk $100. Why? Because people who work produce goods and services, the price of which reflects the costs of production, which in turn includes the labor of the workers who produce them. Of course, the effect won't be even across all goods and services, leading to an economic destabilization, especially with trading partneres abroad, even if the inflow of suddenly-cheap foreign-made goods were constricted to previous levels. The members of the government who triggered the destabilization will get the boot in the next election. It's more trouble than it's worth. Hence, the minimum wage should increase only to keep pace with inflation.
Wouldn't this improve the lot of the poor and lower working class?
Because its effect will differ across different sectors of the economy, and there may be a time-lag before the effects reverberate, any improvement of the lot of the working family will be difficult to predict. Many would lose their jobs. If appropriate import controls were not enacted, make that "almost all." Cheap foreign goods could flood the markets, but with jobs scarce, few could afford to buy.
To what degree should the employer be able to determine the value of labor?
A full-time job should provide a minimally decent standard of living. Beyond that, nothing should prevent an employer from increasing wages.
6. If you over-paid a shop owner $20.00 for a new carpet cleaner, would you not expect a refund or credit?
Why would I do such a stupid thing? But I expect the shopkeeper to make correct change for the denominations of money that I present to him.
Would you consider it theft if the business kept the overpayment without refunding or crediting you?
I wouldn't be happy. I'd probably raise a public stink using freedom of speech until the shopkeeper felt that the business would suffer if it does not placate me.
Does not, an anticipated multi-billion dollar surplus indicate an overpayment on the part of the American taxpayer?
No; the surplus goes to pay debts already incurred on my behalf. In any case, no multi-billion dollar surplus is anticipated.
7. If your 23-year old daughter had an internship with a major corporation, and had spent her summer on her knees, under the desk of the married CEO, would you demand his resignation, or support his retention because he had been a "good," CEO?
If her internship included some legitimate business activity that involved such a posture, I would accept it. If, however, you refer to an analogue of the Clinton sex scandals, I would expect the CEO to go to jail. And he cannot conduct business from jail. So either he resigns or is ousted.
What if the CEO lied outright about the incident in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by your daughter?
I don't have a daughter, but I'd probably be inclined to trust her, especially in such a matter. And the CEO should be assessed additional criminal and civil penalties for lying under oath.
8. Is it truly and logically possible to be governed by our consent without ultimately being given the resort of arms?
I suppose that it is theoretically possible, but not in a society with the armed police and technological prowess of America.
How is it possible that a human can honestly and legitimately consent without owning the means to refuse?
That's a logical contradiction. It's not consent.
9. What paragraph(s) of the Constitution outline the responsibilities of the Department of Education?
Article VIII, "Education", Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, all sections. The article does not mention a "Department of Education;" however, the General Assembly has formed said department to meet its responsibilities. A Board of Education, also mentioned in said article, is appoited by the governor. Also relevant is Section 15, of Article I, the state's "Bill of Rights:"
That no free government, nor the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles; and by the recognition by all citizens that they have duties as well as rights, and that such rights cannot be enjoyed save in a society where law is respected and due process is observed.
That free government rests, as does all progress, upon the broadest possible diffusion of knowledge, and that the Commonwealth should avail itself of those talents which nature has sown so liberally among its people by assuring the opportunity for their fullest development by an effective system of education throughout the Commonwealth.
10. If we, as a nation and political system have no moral superiority over nations and governments, why do we spend public monies on maintaining memorials to those that have died in order to preserve and spread our way of life?
For once, your premise is correct, but the memorials to which you refer celebrate certain persons, heroes who exemplify our culture, and their heroic actions. They also celebrate those who have advanced the cause of civilization for all of mankind. They are the best of America.
Should we no longer fund these projects?
To the extent that the people celebrated in these memorials were American heroes, leaders, and innovators, we should continue to fund these projects.
11. If reparations for past wrongs can be demanded by the descendants of the victims from the descendants of the perpetrators, should native Americans be named as defendants in law suits against the tobacco industry?
The question is irrelevant because the stated premise is wrong. Reparations can be obtained only by the victims (or the family of the victim alive at the time of the crime, if the victim was killed) and from the perpetrators. I suppose that the demands fall under free speech, but they should have no basis in law.
If, as many Afro-centrist scholars contend, Ancient Egyptian Civilization was the product of black africans, are not the descendants of Israelite slaves who built the pyramids owed reparations?
No. No one from who lived during that era is alive today.
12. If one maintains that Darwinian evolutionary theory should be taught as fact, and at the exclusion of all other theories in public schools, one must subscribe to the notion of "survival of the fittest." If one believes that, "survival of the fittest," is a natural, evolutionary process, does the Endangered Species Act set a dangerous precedent in man's interference with nature?
Two schools of thought exist. Either man is above nature and can interfere with it as he sees fit OR man is a part of nature and his decisions cannot interfere with nature because they are a part of it. Humans may depend upon some endangered animals and have need to protect them. Their existance may make our lives better and may be important to the economy.
Wouldn't the artificially protracted preservation of a species destined for extinction result in an ecological catastrophe?
No, it is unlikely that such species will persist very long in numbers sufficiently large to truly matter.
13. If you knew for a fact that a person was HIV positive, would you allow your teen-ager to have sexual intercourse with that person if they promised to use a condom they got from the school nurse?
Unconditionally no. I would not allow my teenagers to marry, which I stipulate as a prerquisite for such intercourse.
Would you have intercourse with someone you knew was HIV+, as long as you used a condom?
I don't think that I'd marry such a person. But I suppose that if she were my wife and got the disease through no fault of her own, something (artificial insemination, perhaps) could be arranged.
Uhmmm, the tenth ammendment does.
Safford, Arizona. Last Spring.
A Mobil station on the main drag. Self-service prices, but the attendants pumped the gas, washed the windshield, checked the oil, the works.
Why? "Because we want your business".
I'll stop there again next Spring...
Just vist Drudge tonight and read about Rosie O. She had a rough childhood. Admits she was abused. This is the case in every homo I've ever met. I 've even had them say "I had a wonderfull childhood", only later to find out they were abused in some way. Homosexuality comes from self loathing. They want to die or be abused. It's the most dificult thing in the world to come to grips with your caretakers "not caretaking". Abuse doesn't always apear as homosexuality, but homosexuality comes from abuse. Abuse can also apear as alcholism, overeating, or any of a dozen obsesive or compulsive behaviors. Most dopers can tell of a dad that never paid attention, or a mom that slept around. They each have a different story, but it hurt them emotionally. That is why they are 40 acting 12. Homosexuality is self distruction. I just don't believe people are born that way, and I've seen plenty. They also prey on normal children to make their lives a mess, even though the parents try to do a good job. This is usually the source of homo's saying they were raised right. What they don't tell you is what happened at camp when they were 12.( or while serving as an alter boy). The parents have no clue, but the child believes its his fault.
Now a homo goes for help with emotional problems, they are told there is nothing wrong with them, so they sink deeper into the abyss until they are murdered by sadists, or catch HIV, or end up in jail or a mental facility. Very few last till they are 50.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.