Phi for All

Personally, I think both parties are catering to big insurance and big pharma. If the Reps were truly interested in fiscal frugality and integrity, they would allow the federal government to negotiate with the pharmaceuticals with regards to Medicare drugs. If the Dems were truly interested in providing a workable healthcare system, they would not accept a bill without a public option to provide competition for administratively expensive insurance companies. The Big Bill is full of garbage and the Small Bill doesn't truly address what this country is worthy of: a healthcare system that takes care of its citizens like the valuable human beings they are, and puts prevention, utility and efficiency ahead of profit.

None of the plans I've seen is worthy of what needs to be accomplished. The Republican plan jryan mentioned is inadequate because it didn't address pre-existing conditions or tort reform, two issues I feel very strongly about. None of the other plans seem to handle these issues either, and I can't put any trust in a bill with 2700 pages that has limited debate and amendment. This whole thing stinks as I watch the path towards healthcare being narrowed down to two steel rails, and I'm tired of being railroaded by those who want to snake their way between me and my tax dollars.

It's midnight, you're walking on a greenbelt path in a residential area that goes under a main street, there's no one else around and you hear a police car siren approaching. As you emerge from the tunnel, you hear a car pass overhead at high speed, and suddenly a hardside suitcase drops from the street level to the path. The car speeds on and the police car also speeds by, sirens on and lights flashing. Neither car's passengers could have seen you down on the path. The case has popped open neatly with nothing falling out. Inside is a bunch of money in denominations ranging from $10 - $100, wrapped crudely with rubber bands. There could conceivably be several tens of thousands of dollars there. There is also a large plastic gallon bag of what seems to be marijuana. There is also a 9mm automatic handgun. Your jacket could be arranged so you could stuff either the money or the plastic bag discreetly inside, but not both (putting both the money and the bag in your jacket would make it look obvious you were hiding things there). You could use your jacket as a sack for everything but the suitcase, but that might also be suspicious or memorable. The gun can be slipped in your waistband discretely in any of these scenarios. You left your cell phone at home. What would you do?

I agree. At some point, I think a moral standpoint should be based on what *you* think is wrong, not on what others might think of you for doing it. And I think hitting Mr. Forgetful is immoral, since he's done nothing to deserve it, it's wrong *as* he's feeling the pain, it continues to be wrong after he's forgotten it. What about the psychological damage it does to you for hitting an innocent person, and for going unpunished because of his disability?

The Darwin Warning System!

Are you saying this because the child is still dependent upon the mother for care after birth, that a newborn human can't survive on it's own? The child could be cared for by many means if the mother wasn't around. As far as I can see, pro-choice only concerns itself with what is happening inside a woman's body during pregnancy. Morally, how can you have a free person if that person isn't allowed to make decisions concerning their own body?

So good to see you back, Radical Edward! Your Intro thread has been a huge success. Your photovoltaic flashlight, not so much.

You mean like someone beats up a woman in her first trimester with the intent to cause a miscarriage? To me, morally, if the mother wanted that baby, this would be murder. Any further response is more a political one, but I would again defer to the mother as to what charges need to be pressed beyond assault and battery, if the legal limit for abortion was within the first trimester. A forced abortion without the mother's consent should always be grounds for murder.

What are your views on atheism? And if you are an atheist, please let us know why you feel it's the right conclusion for you.

Morally, I think the life of a child begins when its mother decides it should live to be born. This gives the mother the right to do what she deems best with her own body. The unborn child is completely dependent on its mother and her choices by definition anyway. Politically, legally, I think a certain time limit for abortions must be agreed upon, since we're talking about a definition of life in a democratic society. Life can't begin at conception for legal purposes, for many reasons. Sometime before the first trimester ends seems a good compromise place to set the limit.

Faith, or beliefs, are usually influenced by exposure to some kind of more organized religion, and may retain varying amounts of that influence. Your beliefs sound like they have undergone some changes through study and experience until it's right for you, and that's what I'm getting at. Others have very sacred and unbending beliefs. I know it'll be different for each person, and I'd like to hear how those differences are expressed.

The title is a bit misleading, perhaps to draw some more folks in. What I'm looking for is more along the lines of how you judge which religion has the right answer for your spiritual questions. Do you just believe the religion you were raised in is the right one? Is the religion with the most followers the right one? Do you study as many as you can and choose the one that represents your beliefs best? Do you think there is something basic to all of them that is generally correct and the rest is just scenery? Or do you have another reason why your faith is in the right place?

I'm not sure there is anything that can be legally done by the UN. I was really talking about education, some sort of awareness program for reinforced concrete. Something that simply makes it de rigueur for anyone building multi-stories with concrete to reinforce it with something. As I mentioned, even in the poorest countries, you wouldn't think of building a balcony without a railing, and the same mindset should be encouraged with using reinforced concrete.

We all really need to start thinking like this for the future. Sometimes the upfront costs are pretty high, but save tons of money over a long period, like using higher quality materials with 3x costs and 6x durability. Sometimes it's just a matter of giving up some convenience upfront, like with letting asphalt cure for 3 months before driving on it so it lasts for 10 years. Putting rebar in concrete to reinforce it should be part of international law (or at least international consciousness), something everyone takes for granted, like railings on a balcony so kids don't walk off them. It's easy to inspect to make sure it's being done, and adds little to the costs. Maybe the politicians should start getting their photo ops and sound bytes from diverted disaster sites where their foresight saved thousands of lives.

So far, all is going well, even with Religion. All we ever wanted was curious, courteous, enthusiastic discussions, and that's exactly what we're getting to date.

Is that where part of the problem lies, in the interpretation of the word "almighty" to mean "omnipotent"? Does almighty mean "unlimited power" or simply "most powerful"?

I'll also be interested in seeing that scripture. If the Bible never claims God is omnipotent, that would come as a shock to many people I've talked to.

He pretty much clammed up when mooeypoo mentioned she had read one of his papers supporting evolution. He knew then his "credentials" were in a paper bag that had been set on fire. But you're right, it would have been nice to watch him try to stomp it out.

Doug was right. In the US, we call it the IRS.

My new bumper sticker: "Omnipotence is the best form of job security".

If it does, and I tend to think so, then it also implies that God would still be at least billions of years ahead of us in experience, and therefore still considered a superior being.

The need for some sort of legal definition of when life begins is necessary when considering abortion, but that's more of a political discussion. I'd like to know if your religious (or simply moral) views allow for abortion at any time after conception. When does life begin according to your beliefs and can that ever be reconciled with the laws that need to exist to allow for abortion? And if your spiritual answer is, "Life begins at conception," then how can we deal with that legally when, under that definition, any miscarriage of a pregnancy might potentially be investigated as a murder?

Our understanding is currently incomplete, we have no complete TOE yet, but we're certain that the Laws of Thermodynamics can't be broken. Omnipotence suggests that God could circumvent those laws by a mere act of will. I'm suggesting that perhaps the whole concept of omnipotence is misunderstood. Early man, with a limited understanding of the laws, might have considered space-faring aliens omnipotent, so perhaps God does exist but works within the laws as He understands them, and we're simply calling it omnipotence.

The way I see it, if God can do anything, even perform acts that are outside the laws of the physical universe He may even have created, it destroys most chances of meaningful scientific discussion about Him. If, however, God merely has a complete knowledge of the universe and operates within its laws, then we can actually have a decent dialogue that's not destined to end with, "Well, He's all-powerful, sooooo...." God still doesn't seem to desire direct observation, but with omnipotence removed He is less supernatural. What if He has been working with the Laws of Everything (all interactions unified with gravity and completely understood) for billions of years (with the current universe, at least)? Is a God like this any more believable? Any less worthy?

It's simple. The government wouldn't have to take as much out of my healthcare dollar for administration, nor does it take a cut for profit, or for 7-figure executive bonuses. Doctors would benefit because the government pays on a 30-45 day cycle, as opposed to insurance companies who take 90-120 days while they spend even more of my money checking to see if I filled out my applications incorrectly, or if the doctors might have used some kind of experimental drug to save my life that they won't have to pay for. You've may not have heard of these kinds of things, because FOX News doesn't criticize insurance companies (to keep on topic). Again, you're using the current restrictions of the IRS for a non-existent socialized healthcare program. It could easily be set up with a right to recourse, much as the IRS has Tax Advocacy available. And if you had a problem with your medical procedures, I'm sure you'd be taking it up with the doctors involved, not the feds. I don't see us taking away the capitalist side of medicine, but I'd love to take away the idea of medical insurance. I'd rather pay my $850/month to someone who isn't skimming profit so they can turn me down when I need them most.