User:Beleg Strongbow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beleg_Strongbow. |
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||
| Search user languages | ||||||||||
The political/moral/spiritual/miscellaneous positions stated on this user page are that of the user. Though they are not necessarily intended for discussion, feel free to post either your approval or disagreements (if constructive) within the corresponding talk page, but please do not feel free to either edit or remove any of the content below.
Thank you, and smile! God loves you. :)
Contents |
[edit] Beleg Strongbow (a poem)
Beleg Strongbow
A Sindarin Elf of Doriath was he.
Warrior woodsmen that came to be
In Thingol’s realm, an archer to be feared.
Haladin aided, a War of Unnumbered Tears.
A Year of Lamentation ensued.
Battle Grief was readily viewed.
Apprenticed Túrin, in arms and deed.
Two great captains, giving aid in need.
Although a bowman by right,
Yet in his last year did take
The sword Anglachel to fight.
His enemies fled in its wake.
His friend Túrin was captured and subdued.
The Orcish captors took him from Amon Rûdh.
Beleg rescued Túrin from this grisly end.
But Túrin bewitched slays his dear, good friend.
And so passes Beleg, the Strongbow Sindarin Elf,
Betrayed by a sword’s malice and a friend to himself.
His Bow Belthronding is buried with him
As Túrin grieves for his unknowing whim.
[edit] Evolution disclaimer statement
Some kind of disclaimer statement should be present wherever scientific-ish hypotheses are being promoted that rely heavily upon the validity of Evolution (i.e. Darwinistic-based theories on natural selection). This statement would serve as recognition of dependency upon the unproven Theories of Evolution.
The following are examples of such disclaimers:
- The following statements rely heavily (if not entirely) upon the assumed validity of various Theories of Evolution.
- Based upon the assumptions which form the foundation of Darwinistic Evolution, the following conjectures have been derived.
Where it may be approved within the discussion section of articles, I will attempt to add this disclaimer to articles whenever it might bring clarity to the topic.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Position on abortion (1)
The issue of induced embryonic/fetal abortion is one of the most contentious controversies within American society. Those who are willing to share their opinion(s) on this topic rarely express a neutral point of view, as its core is fundamental human rights: either the right of choice (from the perspective of those who support the legalization of induced abortion) or the right of life (from the perspective of those who oppose abortion). For the benefit of the culture within the United States of America, it may be best that, as a nation, the people of America accept one of the following opposing positions:
- A fetus, though both human and living, is not truly human life, insomuch that it is not an actual person but is instead a collection of quickly evolving tissues with only the potential of eventually becoming a human being, and therefore is owed no particular "rights", including the right to life.
- A person's humanity begins at the moment of conception/fertilization, and an abortion (whether spontaneous or induced), at any stage of pregnancy, is inherently the death of an human being, therefore a medically unnecessary abortion is the intentional murder of innocent human life.
The following statement summarizes the essential argument supporting the right to abortion on demand: A woman must have the right to choose how to treat her own body. Taking a glance at this argument, the average reasonable person should be able to see the logic it offers, but upon closer inspection a more thoughtful person may be intrigued to ask a few questions.
As an embryo grows into a fetus, as early as the second week of fetal-development (i.e. from the moment of fertilization), it already has a partially developed brain, vertebra and heart. When considering the early arrival of the two most important organs as well as the skeletal structure, one might ask the following questions:
-
- Is that the woman's brain?
- Is that her heart?
- How many hearts and brains does one woman normally have?
- How many bones does one person truly need?
Naturally, the correct answer is that women (just as men) have one heart and one brain each, as well as a fixed number of bones. So, are these extra body parts her own? or do they instead belong to someone else?
From this point forward in the development of the fetus, more and more body parts form and begin to function on their own--all parts being present by the eighteenth week--though the fetus is fully dependant upon the impregnated woman for nutrition and shelter. Of those additional body parts, how many of them actually belong to the woman? Do women have ten fingers and ten toes (developed within the eighth week) or twenty each? Two eyes (begin to develop by the fourth week) or four? One mouth (begins to form within the third week) or two? Whose body is it really?
At best, the argument, that the woman is making a decision concerning solely her own body, is questionable. At worst, she is deciding the fate of a body that is not her own and instead belongs to another, though amazingly housed within her womb.
Another point being made to support the right to induce an abortion, though closely related to the main argument, is the following: Because the woman is an adult she has the right to make this choice for herself and on her own. The position that a woman should be able to make this decision unilaterally "because she is an adult" is based upon two weak assumptions.
- First, it assumes she is an adult, while a large number (if not the majority) of abortions are performed on teenage girls, who are often not actually being given a choice but are instead coerced and/or compelled by either their parents or their boyfriends.
- Second, it asserts that being an adult gives someone the right to decide when another human being's life is neither necessary nor desirable and may therefore be terminated. In normal situations the application of this rationale is called murder and its legal and social acceptance would necessarily be considered anarchy.
My personal position, that human life begins at the moment of conception, dictates that induced abortion is inherently wrong and is indeed murder. The only exception would be for the necessity of saving the mother's life, yet thankfully this necessity has been all but eliminated within modernized countries.
I ask the question, How can it be a woman's Constitutional Right to murder a human being within his most vulnerable stage of life...?
Indeed, embryonic/fetal abortion is the most heinous form of evil, for in this act, a human being, existing within the most vulnerable stage of life, is betrayed and murdered by the very person upon whom he is completely dependent, the very person who should have loved him without measure, though to all the world he was unknown.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Position on abortion (2)
When discussing or debating the issue of induced embryonic/fetal abortion, the question of morality will usually come to the forefront, often overshadowing all others points. With the subtopic of morality, some form of the following question often becomes the central point of discussion: Is the being in the womb a real child?
Based upon the body of arguments offered by abortion advocates, Dr. Stephen Schwartz, in his book The Moral Question of Abortion (Sophia Institute Press, Manchester, NH, 1990), has developed four consolidated categories of contention intended to differentiate between the born and the unborn and to justify the termination of life for the latter. He has also created the acronym "SLED" as a tool for remembering and thereby arguing against the following four pro-abortion arguments:
- Size / Physical Appearance – the unborn does not look like a person, either in size or in physical appearance, therefore it is not a living human being.
- Level of Development – the unborn does not possess all of the normal abilities of a normal living person, therefore it is neither truly alive nor truly a person.
- Environment – the unborn's location, being so different from that of the born, disqualifies it from being a human and from having a right to life.
- Degree of Dependency – because the unborn is substantially dependent upon external sources to sustain its own quality of life and to maintain its development, it is not viable, may be considered non-human and therefore may freely be discarded.
Using the SLED criteria to disqualify life, not only may result in labeling the unborn as non-human but may also be used to justify terminating the lives of even the born who could be described in one or more of the following ways: the unusually small or unusually large; the disfigured, deformed or "non-normal"; the very young or very old; the disabled, the handicapped or even the badly injured; etc. The SLED arguments are both unjust and invalid, and their promotion not only shows an unnatural bigotry against the unborn but also provides a broader attack against humanity at large. (These and other arguments purporting a lack of humanity in the unborn are refuted in chapter one of Dr. Schwartz's book. The actual text is available online here.)
In my personal opinion, Abortion is not the true defining issue between those on the political left and those on the political right. Sanctity of Life is. The unfortunate fact that leftists tend to dismiss the sanctity of life is one of the main reasons why they are producing offspring below the replacement rate (while those on the right are reproducing above the replacement rate) and are therefore forced to increase their numbers through proselytization within the universities, by the means of data manipulation and historical revision.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pro-life statements
- A person's a person, no matter how small! — Horton Hears a Who! by Dr. Seuss
- How can it be a woman's Constitutional Right to murder a human being within his most vulnerable stage of life...?
- Life begins at conception.
[edit] Position on homosexuality (1)
Without question, homosexuals deserve to be treated just as courteously as any heterosexual. Courtesy is something that every individual owes to every other individual, particularly if he desires to be treated courteously himself. But being courteous does not necessarily mean being blindly tolerant.
There is a point being made that homosexuals have not chosen their homosexuality, but this point is largely irrelevant. The real question at hand is not “Has so-and-so chosen to have a particular desire or inclination?” but instead “Has that person decided to act upon it?”
There are many people in the prison systems who literally can not control their harmful--sometimes deadly--desires, but an inability to disassociate oneself from a desire should not be a “permission slip” for licentiousness. For example, pedophilia should not be excused based upon the reasoning that a man who suffers from desires to perform sexual acts upon children did not choose this perversion. Homosexuality, though not as violent, is no less a sexual perversion, as nature itself proves it to be physically, emotionally and (most importantly) spiritually damaging.
Though all have the right, within the God Blessed United States of America, to associate themselves with homosexuality (i.e. possessing sexual desires for members of the same gender), no one should encourage or even excuse the act of homosexuality (i.e. performing sensual acts, ranging from intimate embraces to forms of sexual penetration, with members of the same gender)--to encourage such behavior is no less cruel or reckless than to commit violence against a man, because he has admitted to homosexual tendencies.
Heterosexuals need to reach out in charity, embracing in godliness and with kindness those involved in homosexuality, offering whatever help may be given in an effort to set them free from the chains of this addictive and destructive lifestyle.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Position on homosexuality (2)
Homosexuality, including lesbianism, is a sexual fetish. No fetish deserves special legal protection. No practitioner of a fetish should be eligible for special treatement from the government, nor should he be counted worthy of an acknowledged presence, solely based upon his personal fetish(es), within society.
Homosexuality is an inherently dangerous and destructive fetish in the following key areas of one's humanity:
- Physically, particularly when practiced between males, it is far-and-away the number one cause for the spreading of the disease HIV/AIDS (within modern societies) and is inherently damaging to those parts of the body used for engaging in the act of homosexuality, particularly sexual penetration.
- Emotionally, it has a tendency to alienate open participants from respectable society, which results in loneliness and despair, but more importantly the lifestyle itself leaves the practitioners feeling empty and unfulfilled, driving them to participate in more dangerous and more harmful practices as they seek to achieve that original emotional high.
- Spiritually, it decimates any relationship between the homosexual and his Creator. As seen in His Holy Word, God clearly views the act of homosexuality as an abomination and treats it as a curse upon mankind, which needs to be purged.
- In the Old Testament Law, God commanded the Israelites to remove this sin from their Theocracy using deadly force upon the practitioners (Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22-30, 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Isaiah 3:9). Though there are no historical accounts of the Children of Israel having ever enforced this Law, its existence speaks to the nature of God's Holiness.
- In the New Testament, individuals are instructed to shun sexual sins, killing within themselves those desires that lead to this deadly practice or to any other sinful lifestyle (Romans 1:21-32; I Corinthians 6:9-11; I Timothy 1:5-16; Jude 1-11). In His infinate Grace, the Holy Spirit of God warns His creation against the dangers of sin and leaves the choice to either obey or disobey up to the individual.
Celebrating homosexuality may seem humane and civilized, but in actuality it is cruel and cowardly. If someone insists upon participating in this sexual fetish, he should do so privately, without shaming himself and mocking decency by announcing it to the world, and he should be prepared to live with its devastating consequences.
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
