| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/06/2005 01:20:06 PM · #176 |
| Can anyone explain why so many people who are anti-abortion are also seem to be in favor of capital punishment? Is life sacred or not? |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:25:10 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can anyone explain why so many people who are anti-abortion are also seem to be in favor of capital punishment? Is life sacred or not? |
I can't explain that...you're generalizing again. True, A lot of loud people are like that. I know a lot of people that are anti-both...myself included.
I could ask you the same question in reverse, but I'd be generalizing, General. You should really observe Christians in a culture outside of your own, someday...you've been jaded. And I can understand...I'm also really annoyed with the political 'christians'.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 13:26:56. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:28:52 PM · #178 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
My friend is not a "case."
|
You said "circumstances", he said "case"...interchangeable meanings but you could certainly read the worst into his use of the word if you wish. To the observer, however, this comes across as petty.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 13:29:15. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:31:53 PM · #179 |
| Sorry if it came across as petty, but he came across to me as condescending. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:36:00 PM · #180 |
I thought generalizing was my job ... : )
I do not have a problem with the vast majority of those who consider themselves Christians, only those extremists who seek to impose their fundamentally distorted interpretation of Scriptural law on a supposedly democratic and pluralistic society.
In some ways, I hope they're right -- I can then then take comfort in knowing they'll suffer eternal damnation for the evils they've wrought in the name of God, while the meek shall finally inherit the Earth. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:37:01 PM · #181 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by mpemberton:
Not sure what they are really talking about either... I thought it was originally has religious belief been unhealthy for society.
I guess I missed the part about God(dess, etc) saying: "Though shalt have perfect lives, and make decisions that are super cool." |
There was a diversion through a discussion of one of the many "practical" examples of how religious extremism is unhealthy for a free and democratic society. |
Basics are, if you believe in G-d and believe there are no mistakes made by G-d, then G-d aborts or does not abort on an idvidual bases according to a grand design.
Now taking the allegory and breaking it into humanistic terms.
The future requires children. Some will aid in bettering it survival, others will aid in its down fall. The future should make this choice, not the present.
Its a tuff road now days, because everything is "live in the now", because who knows what will be in the future.
Kind of sad actually, living in the "now" and trying to convey an ideal of a future to children.
Just thoughts |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:39:53 PM · #182 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I thought generalizing was my job ... : )
I do not have a problem with the vast majority of those who consider themselves Christians, only those extremists who seek to impose their fundamentally distorted interpretation of Scriptural law on a supposedly democratic and pluralistic society. |
I'm in complete agreement with you.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In some ways, I hope they're right -- I can then then take comfort in knowing they'll suffer eternal damnation for the evils they've wrought in the name of God, while the meek shall finally inherit the Earth. |
That's funny in a creepy way! |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:43:09 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I do not have a problem with the vast majority of those who consider themselves Christians, only those extremists who seek to impose their fundamentally distorted interpretation of Scriptural law on a supposedly democratic and pluralistic society. |
My sentiments exactly.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In some ways, I hope they're right -- I can then then take comfort in knowing they'll suffer eternal damnation for the evils they've wrought in the name of God, while the meek shall finally inherit the Earth. |
This had occurred to me, too. :)
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:43:45 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In some ways, I hope they're right -- I can then then take comfort in knowing they'll suffer eternal damnation for the evils they've wrought in the name of God, while the meek shall finally inherit the Earth. |
"they'llthey've?"
If "they" are right, it is a "we" thing -- all of us, "them" included. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:50:15 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
In some ways, I hope they're right -- I can then then take comfort in knowing they'll suffer eternal damnation for the evils they've wrought in the name of God, while the meek shall finally inherit the Earth. |
"they'llthey've?"
If "they" are right, it is a "we" thing -- all of us, "them" included. |
I guess another funny bit is that the meek are not to stand in the way of the sinners.
So, then who are the meek? |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 01:57:11 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Riponlady:
...it is something that each individual must make up their own minds about and follow their beliefs. That is why is cannot be illegal for women to have an abortion if they wish it. |
Now that's nonsense (the second sentence). If you take the position that "life" has intrinsic value and that a fetus is a living human being then it's very easy to argue that a person's "freedom of choice" takes second place.
If only the debate were that easy! |
But I don't believe that a foetus is a living human being! So it is not nonsense in my beliefs!
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 02:01:13 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But I don't believe that a foetus is a living human being! So it is not nonsense in my beliefs! |
That's my point...it's not a debate over "freedom of choice". It's a debate over whether or not a foetus is a living human being.
Imagine if somebody said that pygmies were too primitive to consider human beings and that their slaughter should be allowed. On this you and I agree...it's awful and should not be allowed. How would we respond to that person's argument that "hey, we're both going to disagree so making it illegal for me to kill pygmies is impossible".
That is why I called your statement nonsense, as it assumes that your position is correct. Whether or not abortions should be illegal is a very debatable subject, contrary to what you said.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 14:02:14. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 02:51:23 PM · #188 |
Why are you all assuming all human life should be held sacred anyway? Is the border between being a human and not all it takes to decide whether you can kill it or not?
I honestly don't see why killing a human baby is any worse than killing, say, a baby cow - i enjoy veal, killing calves has its utility. It's done for a purpose. Killing unborn children is also done for a purpose. I bet you the cow suffers more. This isn't some OMG LETS BE VEGAN ALL LIFE IS SACRED argument i'm trying to slide in here with sarcasm, i'm making a genuine point. An unborn human (or a human baby at that) has no experiences, it is losing very little in death... certainly much less than an adult that is "murdered", the simile simply fails to hold up. It is easy to create a human child, it takes many years of unreplacable experience to create a human adult. Killing unwanted babies after birth used to be a perfectly common practice in ancient Rome and certain parts of medieval Europe. I don't see what all your fuss is about.
Discuss :)
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 03:04:16 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by riot:
Discuss :) |
Well, good questions...
Personally, I believe that I'm a 'creature' (that is, a created being) that was given god-likeness. By 'god-likeness' (or perhaps you prefer 'created in his image') I mean that I believe I have a spiritual self in addition to my physical self. Therefore, I believe that human life has an intrinsic value to it. I'm not sure about others...
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 15:04:35. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 03:29:48 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by riot:
Discuss :) |
Well, good questions...
Personally, I believe that I'm a 'creature' (that is, a created being) that was given god-likeness. By 'god-likeness' (or perhaps you prefer 'created in his image') I mean that I believe I have a spiritual self in addition to my physical self. Therefore, I believe that human life has an intrinsic value to it. I'm not sure about others... |
Why are you unsure about other forms of life? Have you ever had a relationship with a cat or a dog? What's your definition of "spiritual"? Self-awareness?
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 15:30:46. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 03:41:46 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Why are you unsure about other forms of life? Have you ever had a relationship with a cat or a dog? |
Yes, but not for a long time. And I'm not sure about animals, although I suspect there's spirituality there...but I don't know. The reason I'm unsure is because my view of spirituality is informed by Jesus (the one claiming to be Messiah) and he didn't mention the spirituality of animals or plants. He only said that God cares greatly for them.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What's your definition of "spiritual"? Self-awareness? |
Not at all. I'm not sure of the working definition but when I speak of something "spiritual" I'm speaking of the eternal...that which isn't physical...not of this world...spirit-filled rather than physical-being-filled.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 15:43:35. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 03:56:41 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by riot:
Killing unwanted babies after birth used to be a perfectly common practice in ancient Rome and certain parts of medieval Europe. I don't see what all your fuss is about.
Discuss :) |
Now thats a fallacy: The Romans called it exposure and went thusly:
With child exposure the first thing to do is make a distinction between exposure and infanticide. Romans who had babies that they couldn't support and didn't want to raise would have set them out in an appointed place where passersby could pick them up if they wanted to. Why did they do it? Well because they had no predictable form of birth control. Having the right size family has been a problem through the ages... For poor families the problem was matching their resources to the size of their family. And so the exposure of a newborn in some cases was a kind of calculated form of love for the rest of the family.
Another point. Romans actually held child bearing as very important due to a child death rate of close to 25%, and this allowed for other families "paterfamilias" to have children. Ummm, adoption without the costs.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 04:18:00 PM · #193 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, if we're going to allow for such. Why should we not simply allow your friend the ability to abort the 10-2 yr old children as well? Shouldn't such be a woman's right to choose as well?
|
This is ridiculous. No intelligent debate can be had here with this level of absurdity. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 04:23:17 PM · #194 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, if we're going to allow for such. Why should we not simply allow your friend the ability to abort the 10-2 yr old children as well? Shouldn't such be a woman's right to choose as well?
|
This is ridiculous. No intelligent debate can be had here with this level of absurdity. |
theSaj's question shows that this isn't about the "right to choose". The debate is about whether or not human life has intrinsic value and when human life begins. Those issues need to be addressed before we begin to even talk about choice.
Look, I respect it when people say "Foetus isn't human life, abortion is fine" or maybe even if people might say "human life has no value, abortion is fine"....but the argument that holds no water is the one that introduces the idea of a woman being raped for example. If the life inside of her has value and is indeed a life then it matters not how it got there, does it?
I haven't even begun debating those points...I'm just trying to focus the debate on what is or isn't at stake here. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 04:37:32 PM · #195 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
...but the argument that holds no water is the one that introduces the idea of a woman being raped for example. If the life inside of her has value and is indeed a life then it matters not how it got there, does it? |
I imagine that to someone who supports the death penalty for rape, this would be a logical progression?
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 05:17:05 PM · #196 |
I quite agree that there are many men who also think the same way as we do and I didn\'t mean to imply this is a feminist issue - it is something that each individual must make up their own minds about and follow their beliefs. That is why is cannot be illegal for women to have an abortion if they wish it. The number of women who misuse this right are far outnumbered by those who only use it as a final resort after much heart-searching.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Oh Saj if life was only as simple as you think it can be. If only every quadraplegic could have a job reviewing video footage and every single mother go to college or be a nursery assistant. Unfortunately the jobs and the people who want to do them just may not fit together geographically or numerically.
|
I'm sorry, why...I didn't include a list of every possibility. And gee, guess what...if there is a list of a few dozen job types they could pursue - and they don't want any of them. Then no, I do not want to pay $$$ to support them. I have to work. Is it necessarily the dream job or what I'd like to be doing. No... is it reasonable...yes. Not everyone can get their dream job of playing in the "major leagues". But having a decent job that one can perform and is reasonable....if you don't want it. Why should others be forced to support you and work at jobs they don't want to do in order to have the money to support themselves and you.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
could you also rely on sensible arguements? Suggesting that killing four childrencould be a choice because you can't look after them is reprehensible and not worthy of you.
|
What's so insensible... 24 month difference? Because that's all there was between my statement and your statement. If that's so reprehensible to you...maybe, just maybe you can open your mind up to see how reprehensible abortion is to most pro-lifers.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
My friend is not a "case."
|
My bad.... I'll rephrase...
"I do have sympathy for those anecdotes"
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What she needed when her life fell apart was for the social services to be in place, like food stamps and etc., which she used the way the vast majority of people use them, for less than three years, not for the rest of her life.
|
And I've never argued against such. I've never argued against short-term social assistance. But I do argue against long-term lifestyle welfare.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Can anyone explain why so many people who are anti-abortion are also seem to be in favor of capital punishment? Is life sacred or not?
|
First off, many are not. Many opposed the death penalty.
Second, for many the issue is one of innocence and justice. And although many believe life is a sacred commodity. They believe those who take lives and commit violent crimes against life must be removed from society. Many do not feel a "life sentence" is adequate because in our day and age a "life sentence" is seldom such. And often is the case that one can be released within a decade or so. Many violent offenders are repeat offenders. As such, they make accept a decision on the part of society regarding such individuals.
Lastly, for many it's a "choice" & "responsibility" issue. A murderer made a choice to commit murder and thus suffers the consequence of capital punishment. They feel a child has not been given an opportunity to make a choice and has not committed any crime. So the question is regarding the "capital punishment of a violent criminal" vs the "capital punishment of an innocent human being". And to most people there is a big difference between the too.
If you were to take a poll "how many people support the death penalty for innocent people" I think you'd find that nearly 100% would be against it.
I know, since this is related to the abortion debate the common sense understanding will be tossed aside and the question will be why is there a difference killing is killing. The same reason me pointing out a difference between aborting a baby and killing a 2 month old baby is considered "reprehensible".
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Sorry if it came across as petty, but he came across to me as condescending.
|
That's because you see a difference of view, and do not like the arguments and refutations of the common rhetoric I've made. As I see very little addressing of any of those points - outside of "that's the extreme".
You have little respect for anyone who opposes your view. This whole post was condenscending to numerous people. Your attitude has from the initial post been such.
I had no condensation whatsoever to the situation and hardship of your friend. But do I have a major lack of respect for your comments....probably as much as you do for mine.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
But I don't believe that a foetus is a living human being! So it is not nonsense in my beliefs!
|
I want to ask you to just take a simple step back. And consider, if you did believe it was a human being. How would you think? where would you stand? if you just took a single moment to think from that perspective you'd probably understand pro-lifers and their actions. And instead of referring to them so derogatorily and insulting - you might say "hey...I see where you're coming from, I think differently...but yeah...if I thought as you I'd probably be against it".
When a pro-lifer gives an example of the death of Jews who were deemed "non-human" and you respond - that's so outrageous. Well the case of the matter is - it's not. It happened. It still happens. But would you think it right in 1944 to ignore the massacre of Jews simply because the Germans in control deemed them not to be "people". I could not....can not....
"That's my point...it's not a debate over "freedom of choice". It's a debate over whether or not a foetus is a living human being." - thatcloudthere
And I believe in erring on the side of caution. Likewise, I do not believe in the death penalty if the party pleads innoncent and there is not absolute proof (video, multiple witness + evidence, etc.) If there is not absolute proof or confession I do not support the death penalty.
Originally posted by riot:
Why are you all assuming all human life should be held sacred anyway?
|
Riot, you've made the one point I accept - believe it or not. I encountered a gal who believed that a feotus was indeed a baby, indeed a person, but did not believe there was really anything wrong with ending it's life. Her opinion was the planet is over-populated with humans and so what if we lose some, whether babies or adults.
I conceded and said if she's okay with that I have no case to make against her and we left it at that.
If you believe that killing of people is not a big deal. Hey, kill off the weak make the race stronger. Heck, the death of a few billion would likely reduce environmental impact, etc. Then I've got no real argument.
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, if we're going to allow for such. Why should we not simply allow your friend the ability to abort the 10-2 yr old children as well? Shouldn't such be a woman's right to choose as well?
|
This is ridiculous. No intelligent debate can be had here with this level of absurdity. |
Why, because I made a rational logical deduce situational argument that you are afraid to address because you can't provide a logical reason or counterpoint.
Of course this is the same dilemna going on in California. Double-homicide for killing a pregnant woman and her baby. Er...wait...not a baby...a baby...not a baby. Does not compute. So the determination of whether a feotus is a baby or tissue is a "woman's choice". So let me get this straight. If the woman believes it's a baby - than it's a baby. But if she believes it's merely tissue - it's tissue....
And just WHO is being unscientific now? who is being emotional? who is being merely motivated by belief and no logic? excuse me...
Come one...address my arguments - it get's tiring...I have yet to meet a pro-choice individual give even the most minimal response to most of the arguments and to explain just what differentiates aborting a baby 2 months before birth and killing the baby at 2 months after birth?
Please....show me your great and wise scientific logical rational knowledge of which you constantly accuse pro-lifers of not having nor using. Thank you!
- Jason |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 05:18:25 PM · #197 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
The debate is about whether or not human life has intrinsic value and when human life begins. Those issues need to be addressed before we begin to even talk about choice. |
That's what the debate is about for you, and I accept that. For others there may be equally important issues to consider in this debate, such as controlling one's own life and body. But I'll put that aside for the time being to debate the "life" issues. Personally, I have difficulty equating the life of a one-day-old fetus with that of a nine-month-old fetus, for example. I don't have a systematic approach to this question as I don't believe in God or a soul that necessarily survives the body.
And unfortunately, I'll have to leave it there for now; I'm wanted in the kitchen. :)
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 17:19:34. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 05:38:49 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
For others there may be equally important issues to consider in this debate, such as controlling one's own life and body |
Then we must make the determination, is my right to control my body of great enough importance to have an affect on another's life and body?
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Personally, I have difficulty equating the life of a one-day-old fetus with that of a nine-month-old fetus, for example. I don't have a systematic approach to this question as I don't believe in God or a soul that necessarily survives the body. |
That's fine. And I can even respect that. And I can understand such. But if that's the case - than I'd expect you to support the ban on partial-birth abortions. Or other very late term procedures.
In fact, there are angles I have yet to ever hear a pro-choicer even mention. Ones that go against my stance but that I at least would have respect for.
But the fact that there is a difference between a 2 day old, 2 week old, 2 month prior and 2 month after birth baby...even in your mind, demands from many a justification. I am often occused of being in a group who refuses logic, science and rationality and acts merely on belief and emotions. Yet, I constantly see the pro-choice side of this debate act merely on belief and emotions with no regard to logic, science and rationality.
So I, and many others, are asking for a determination of "when human life begins" or "how do we (ev)valu(at)e life" one or the other. Gives us a solid test for life or a reason why we can kill one innoncent life and not the other.
If you were to say, "hey we don't detect brain waves until x days" or they established a test to monitor for a certain type of brain activity and decided that abortions must be done before said activity began. Well...at least that'd make some sort of sense to me. At least there would be some scientific methodology that had a rational, logical basis. Other than "I chose it to be life or not". If I said "I chose green eyed people not to be life and to kill them" you'd think me absurd. But then you wonder at why I find it absurd a mere "I believe" is supposed to be a valid argument.
I've been told I should not be able to vote based on my beliefs. Well, I have reasons and rationals, beside my beliefs for everything I vote for and support. Where is yours?
And if you think that life situations can justify such actions. Why can't those life situations justify the abortion of a 2 month yr old or even a 2 yr old. The mom who flipped out and drowned her children. Why is she punished? Did not her life situations justify her late abortions of her children? Was not that HER CHOICE?
If not, then please, provision a rational basis for making that determination... |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 06:06:28 PM · #199 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Then we must make the determination, is my right to control my body of great enough importance to have an affect on another's life and body? |
So I wonder how many people opposed to abortion believe in justifiable homocide, in killing in self defense?
I've read plenty of threads here about how people feel perfectly justified in killing someone who is breaking into their house, regardless of whether the person actually means to inflict harm or not.
Why shouldn't a woman have the same right to "defend herself" against the parasite growing in her uterus?
(NOTE: a woman's body recognizes the fetus as a "foreign invader" much as it would other parasites -- the particular type of white blood cells known as eosiniphils selectively increase during parasitic infections, allergic reactions, and pregnancy.) |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 06:11:54 PM · #200 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by theSaj:
Well, if we're going to allow for such. Why should we not simply allow your friend the ability to abort the 10-2 yr old children as well? Shouldn't such be a woman's right to choose as well?
|
This is ridiculous. No intelligent debate can be had here with this level of absurdity. |
Why, because I made a rational logical deduce situational argument that you are afraid to address because you can't provide a logical reason or counterpoint.
Of course this is the same dilemna going on in California. Double-homicide for killing a pregnant woman and her baby. Er...wait...not a baby...a baby...not a baby. Does not compute. So the determination of whether a feotus is a baby or tissue is a "woman's choice". So let me get this straight. If the woman believes it's a baby - than it's a baby. But if she believes it's merely tissue - it's tissue....
And just WHO is being unscientific now? who is being emotional? who is being merely motivated by belief and no logic? excuse me...
Come one...address my arguments - it get's tiring...I have yet to meet a pro-choice individual give even the most minimal response to most of the arguments and to explain just what differentiates aborting a baby 2 months before birth and killing the baby at 2 months after birth?
Please....show me your great and wise scientific logical rational knowledge of which you constantly accuse pro-lifers of not having nor using. Thank you!
- Jason |
If you take a fetus out of the mother it dies. A fetus has no consciousness and no awareness. It doesn’t cry, it doesn’t think, it doesn’t love, and its only functions are instinctual. It has not gained attachment of love or otherwise to anyone, except possibly the mother, thought that’s unlikely. The mother is who has the only possible relationship with the fetus as it’s IN HER and growing inside her body, feeding off her body.
A 2 year old is already alive and aware, has feelings, has memories, is loved, feels love, gives love and so on. A 10 year old has friends, goals, self awareness, hobbies, is loved, feels love, gives love, etc.
And since you mention logic let me remind that believing in an invisible supernatural creator that not fact or science can prove or even give evidence of, is illogical. It is also not logical to assume that a book written and re-written, translated over and over by humans over thousands of years, is actually the “word of god”, or can even be trusted at all to be factual.
Not to mention, you can’t “abort” a 2 year old, it’s already been born.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 18:15:41. |
|
