It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do people care more about liberties of the unborn than that of our own?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Loken68
 


I believe this is just a misunderstanding. The poster was just telling me that he/she viewed a fetus as where life begins at conception and we were just having a debate about the idea. I just wanted to get back on to the topic about discussing why people cared more about the issue of the unborn, whereas, I think that our utmost goal in life, at least for now should be protecting what we have and making things the best possible for the future. We should cherish our freedoms, and, make it even better for the unborn. That's all I was saying in that little debate there.


Riddle me this, oh wise and understander of many things!

What kind of life are we searching for on Mars?

Microscopic life.

How big is a fetus? Is it made of organic material? Is there DNA?

It is interesting to me that we would be careful not to hurt any life on Mars if it were found - but that we would willingly kill off our own kin.

What do I know.




posted on May, 10 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   


Why do people care more about liberties of the unborn than that of our own?

False premise from the get go. The two ideas are not incompatible.

People that are pro-life can care as much about the liberties of the unborn as they do any other human being. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, I would even go so far to argue that your original premise is completely false. First, people who are pro-life and care about the unborn also show compassion to human beings in other ways. For example, the traditional Roman Catholic Church --- which is adamantly and publicly pro-life --- also does a tremendous amount of charitable work for the poor, the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the uneducated, the hungry, the widowed, etc.

It's not just the cause of pro-life that the Church addresses - The Church addresses the bulk of its work towards helping the poor, the sick, the hungry, etc.



How can these people continue to fight for the liberty of the unborn while watching everyone else around them lose their own liberty? Why do we elect these people into office while they continue to destroy the constitution and disrespect the founding fathers? This boggles my mind.


Depending on your theological perspective, some would argue that the destruction of our liberties is directly correlated with our sinful, corrupt nature that offends God. Aborting babies is considered by most Christians to be a grave sin against God.

God isn't too happy with our country right now. We've done just about everything we can to offend Him. We are long overdue, some believe, for some karmic retribution for our decadent cultural values and actions. Abortion is just the tip of the iceberg. Our culture promotes all kinds of twisted immoral values - Just turn on your TV, listen to your radio, or go see a movie. The decadence and depravity is everywhere in our media.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


The question is not whether a fetus is life or not. The question is if it's a human being. People say that your life as a human begins at conception. But the fetus isn't even a fully developed life at that, so, you can't even say that it's really a life. The difference between a fetus and bacteria on Mars is that bacteria on Mars doesn't sexually reproduce, a fetus is more of a developing thing. I wouldn't even call it life really. That's why I say it's a potential life. It's not a life yet. But it's getting there.

reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


It's not a false premise from the get-go. A lot of these people who claim to support the life of the unborn care more about the unborn than our own life. In fact many of these same people also support capital punishment. What do you say about all the people who support abortion and also support capital murder? Perhaps the two idea aren't mutually exclusive, but, it does seem that there is a larger proportion of people in the United states here that tend to support the rights of the unborn moreso than of our own.

As to your point about offenses against the Catholic God, or, which I'm not sure what God I believe in but we'll leave religion out of this (I'm an agnostic). Don't you think this God would be more concerned about our actions on Earth more than what we do to only things that have a potential life? And your second assumption is false, in the early days many babies died because we didn't have medical procedures to have successful operations on mothers, and, now we do, and I don't think we had the same stuff going on then out in the open.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Frankidealist35]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   


It's not a false premise from the get-go.

It's your opinion. I gave you contrary evidence you chose to ignore. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, then it's just your opinion.

I see no evidence that people that are pro-life just magically forget about the rest of the human race. There is plenty of compassion for people outside of the womb.



A lot of these people who claim to support the life of the unborn care more about the unborn than our own life.

A lot of the advocates for the pro-life movement also have other similar causes that they support - such as protecting the poor, feeding the hungry, etc.

Most people are not so one dimensional as to have only a single social issue that they support.



What do you say about all the people who support abortion and also support capital murder?

I'd say they are misguided.

Really, you would have to ask someone that holds these beliefs.

I don't think it's particularly relevant to your point, but nonetheless, I can't speak for someone else.



Perhaps the two idea aren't mutually exclusive, but, it does seem that there is a larger proportion of people in the United states here that tend to support the rights of the unborn moreso than of our own.

If you are referring to people being politically active, taking initiative to vote, stopping legislation, rallying around politics, etc., then I would agree with you in the sense that most Americans are not particularly fond of politics. Most Americans just want to support their family, raise their kids, have a decent job, and go to church on Sunday.

There are a lot of people that are disaffected by our current politics - Hence, the apathy that you describe.



Don't you think this God would be more concerned about our actions on Earth more than what we do to only things that have a potential life?

No. I think God is terribly offended by abortion, as well as all of the other problems in our culture. Certainly, God is also concerned with our actions on Earth - That's why He gave us the Ten Commandments, after all.



And your second assumption is false, in the early days many babies died because we didn't have medical procedures to have successful operations on mothers, and, now we do, and I don't think we had the same stuff going on then out in the open.


Maybe you're not watching the same news channels I have for the past decade. Between 911, Katrina, tsunamis, record earthquakes, volcanoes in Iceland, oil spills, flooding in Nashville, etc., you would have to be particularly unaware to not notice that God is not too happy with the human race right now.

Don't you at all find it strange that Mother Nature has gone berserk? I personally believe that there is a theological basis for these strange happenings in our natural environment.


[edit on 10-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Oh Frank. All life is a life in progress. There is no such thing in this particular world as an unchanging "life". Just because you are able to converse and say whatever it is that you believe, it does not make you a more important or a more set lifeform.

Anything in which any organic process is taking place is considered life.

But you're speaking of humans. You're not speaking of life in general. You think that it is morally wrong for someone to put a very young human's life above a more mature human's life.

At what point have we reached when we as humans begin to judge or decide which life is more important?

Narcissism.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


I'm not saying that we should judge which life is more important. We should treat all possible life as just that: possible life. People can have abortions as they so please. They shouldn't do it for no needed reasons, but, I don't believe the government should regulate abortion as I believe there are plenty of valid reasons why we should legalize it. I believe that the fetus is the property of the mother.

As for your point about who is to judge what life is more important? We aren't. What I'm saying is that the same people who care so much about the unborn much like yourself should care about the here and now. Why do you think that protecting the unborn and doing nothing about the future will change the world's course as it already is?

So what if the theological perspective of Christianity is that if we allow abortions then bad things will follow? If the nation bans abortion that doesn't mean that the nation will be great again. It's not like religion can objectively be proven to be true. That's why these religions commit people to them, and they take faith. You can't enforce your religion on other people.

We should be worried about now. We should be worried about as someone else in this thread making life the best now so that our children and our childrens children should be able to live the best possible life. Only worrying about one life and not the other, doesn't seem right.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09
It's not a false premise from the get-go.




It's your opinion. I gave you contrary evidence you chose to ignore. Unless you have evidence to support your claim, then it's just your opinion.


Why do so many pro-lifers favor war and the national security state? It's not my opinion that they do. it's a fact.



I see no evidence that people that are pro-life just magically forget about the rest of the human race. There is plenty of compassion for people outside of the womb.


Most of these people that are pro-life are the same people beating the war drums for war with Iran. Or can't you not tell that the same people crying about Obama for killing babies are the same ones criticizing him for (which isn't true anyways) gutting the military?



A lot of the advocates for the pro-life movement also have other similar causes that they support - such as protecting the poor, feeding the hungry, etc.


That's true. But a lot of them are also corporate pigs.



Most people are not so one dimensional as to have only a single social issue that they support.


Right. Of course, I understand this.



I'd say they are misguided.

Really, you would have to ask someone that holds these beliefs.


Then we should say that most pro-lifers are misguided. As I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of these people believe.



If you are referring to people being politically active, taking initiative to vote, stopping legislation, rallying around politics, etc., then I would agree with you in the sense that most Americans are not particularly fond of politics. Most Americans just want to support their family, raise their kids, have a decent job, and go to church on Sunday.


Right. That's kind of what I'm saying. People who are pro-life need to put the same effort into protecting our nation's civil liberties. Imagine the kind of awakening force we could have if all of these people put their efforts into actually protecting the constitution, and, upholding freedom and liberty.



There are a lot of people that are disaffected by our current politics - Hence, the apathy that you describe.


I'm not talking about apathy. I'm talking about a loss of liberty that we must defend against.



No. I think God is terribly offended by abortion, as well as all of the other problems in our culture. Certainly, God is also concerned with our actions on Earth - That's why He gave us the Ten Commandments, after all.


Humans have free will. Humans choose to go to war. It is humans that choose to do it. This God of yours doesn't command humans to go to war with other nations. That is against the commandments which your God says. The act of going to war with other nations is a human act, and, people have free will to control whether they do it or not. It has nothing to do with abortion. All of these actions are made by humans, unless you want to say that this God of yours is bringing these things down on humanity for punishment.



Maybe you're not watching the same news channels I have for the past decade. Between 911, Katrina, tsunamis, record earthquakes, volcanoes in Iceland, oil spills, flooding in Nashville, etc., you would have to be particularly unaware to not notice that God is not too happy with the human race right now.


National disasters don't prove that this God is angry at people. National disasters have existed through the beginning of time. There have always been a collective group of people that have believed that this meant that we are living in the end times. Not necessarily. You should be careful of the views you are being spoonfed.



Don't you at all find it strange that Mother Nature has gone berserk? I personally believe that there is a theological basis for these strange happenings in our natural environment.


No I don't find it strange at all. I believe that the problems can be blamed on humans tampering with the environment, and, natural weather patterns. It's all scientific and has nothing to do with religion.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Frankidealist35]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


Sure. I belong to my mother. Can she kill me? At what point am I free? Oh yeah. Legally I am free at 18 years old. Oh wait, New York state changed that. Until a child has reached the age of 22, the parents must now provide a living space and funds to live.

Okay, so in New York State, my mother cannot let me die, but also cannot murder me. Unless I am a fetus... Very interesting. Yet I belong to her until I am 22.

And even then, she is still my mother.

As well, isn't the law made by man? Aren't the laws you follow forced upon you? No one is forcing religion on you. But the law is forced on people! What is different about religion and law? Aren't they the exact same thing - a way to live?

There are those who wish for all unborn to be born! There are those who crush their hopes - not with intent to crush hopes, but to avoid responsibility.

Let me ask you this - is sex more important than seeking to help the people now? Maybe whoever got pregnant when they didn't want should have considered helping someone else instead of themselves to their wants.

I'm not perfect - I've made plenty of mistakes. But you are saying that people shouldn't be responsible for their actions. What about the people who need help? Who actually needs help? Who cannot help themselves?

Tell me the people who can't help themselves and I'll show you a way to help them or for them to learn how to help themselves.

I would continue but my wife wants me. Enjoy.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
When you were within your mothers womb, could you defend yourself.
This is a totally insiteful and wasteful thread.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by Loken68
 


I believe this is just a misunderstanding. The poster was just telling me that he/she viewed a fetus as where life begins at conception and we were just having a debate about the idea. I just wanted to get back on to the topic about discussing why people cared more about the issue of the unborn, whereas, I think that our utmost goal in life, at least for now should be protecting what we have and making things the best possible for the future. We should cherish our freedoms, and, make it even better for the unborn. That's all I was saying in that little debate there.


Riddle me this, oh wise and understander of many things!

What kind of life are we searching for on Mars?

Microscopic life.

How big is a fetus? Is it made of organic material? Is there DNA?

It is interesting to me that we would be careful not to hurt any life on Mars if it were found - but that we would willingly kill off our own kin.

What do I know.


That's not my post, that is the op's response. I'm pro-life friend.

What I am trying to figure out is why what Mr. Hitler did in the thirties and forties is perfectly acceptable now. I mean look at the Nazi government when you take away the racism and add freedom we have what we fought against. The Nazi's spread their influence by propaganda, so do we through CNN,FOX,CNBC..ect. The Nazi started several war's that were brought about lies and conspiracy. So did we. The Nazi's exterminated retarded children forcefully but we do it freely. The list goes on and on but this thread got under my skin when the op decided life starts at 4 years old. Do you know that is the age when if children have any defects the doc's will have already found most of them. So will it become ok to abort up to 4 years of age?

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Loken68]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Loken68
 


I wasn't clear with my response. I was using what you said that he was saying for my discussion. I apologize for not making that clear.

I must go, enjoy thoroughly y'all!



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



Star and Flag for you


Have asked the same questions here in this forum countless times


Lucky you for having a brain which is capable of independent thought


How did you escape the indoctrination, might one ask ?

Were your parents equally intelligent and independently minded ?

Or did you skip school a lot, thus granting your mind the freedom to think outside the Dummy-Box ?

In any case, 30 responses prior to this and no Flag ? Uphill battle you have on your hands, apparently

But then, that doesn't take into account the hypocrisy-factor, whereby people will do a Pontious Pilate within their posts in a forum --- under cover of anonymity (and elect to abort, in private)



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I've never understood why so many people can put so much effort towards a discussion about whether unborn people have rights rather than talking about actual living people ourselves. Heck. Unborn people have more rights than we do. They have a right to life. Can we say that about any of us? No we can't.

According to other people everyone else has a right to die and there are people that hold these Christian values but would rather see nothing more than to see everyone submit themselves to the military and submit themselves to die for the valor of their country. How can these people continue to fight for the liberty of the unborn while watching everyone else around them lose their own liberty? Why do we elect these people into office while they continue to destroy the constitution and disrespect the founding fathers? This boggles my mind.

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Frankidealist35]


The reason why we have to make sure our children have more rights then we did is because we cant do nothing about "it", or, we didnt have "them" on our side. If its acceptable in our youths generation, then it is more likely to happen than something that is taboo. That is why all social trends start with younger generations.
=T
::sigh::

[edit on 10-5-2010 by Wide Awake R U]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
i would like to disagree about the "i dont think a baby lives until their 4 years old" as when i was 3 and 2 i was abused, burned, beaten, and half hanged, and had already had 1 major concussion and more without and medical treatment, not only that but had to steal food to feed my self. So i remeber all these things, im sure we truely can live, as in think, and act accordingly.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
There seems to be varying information existing on the after affects of abortion, and how this affects the health of the woman who has had the abortion. There are, of course, many anti-abortion sites that will cite information gained from studies that suggest the after effects of abortion can be brutal to say the least, and for every anti-abortion site, there seems to be a pro-abortion site attempting to dispel the factoids anti-abortion sites offer. However, I found it interesting to note a particular website called Prochoice.com, that seemed to endeavor to offer information regarding health complications and the future of fertility after abortion, that did not seem interested in pulling any punches. Consider just a few bits of data offered by this site:

1.) On severe bleeding;




001) From Dayton Women's Health Center, Iowa: "Mary was rushed to the hospital after her abortion due to profuse bleeding. The attending physicians discovered 'the entire front of her uterus was blown away.' After the surgeon removed the damaged uterus, they explored her abdominal cavity. Behind her liver they found the decapitated head of a 24 week old pre-born child."


or this;




002) Researcher George Grant says, "'There are a lot more complications out there than anyone seems to care to believe,' says Dean. 'It is a national health disaster'" George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1984) 66.


and this;




004) Researcher Doug Scott says, "Dr. Beverly McMillen, a former abortionist from Jackson, Mississippi, notes that Planned Parenthood claims of few complications are unreliable. 'Planned Parenthood clinics, and free-standing abortion clinics like them, claim they have an untarnished record of no complications from their abortion procedures, but what they don't know is that I'm the practitioner who sees their complications. These women don't go back to the clinic where they've had a bad experience. They show up in my office or in my emergency room with their bleeding or with their infections or with their retained placenta, needing another D&C.'" "A Close Look at Planned Parenthood," Focus on the Family radio program, 27-27 October 1989, quoted in Douglas R. Scott, Inside Planned Parenthood, (Grand Rapid, MI: Frontlines Publishing, 1990) 86. They show up in my office, or in my emergency room with their bleeding or with their infections or with their retained placenta . . .


or this;




006) "'Infection is the main cause of death associated with legal abortion in the United States.' (D. A. Grimes & W. Cates, "Complications from Legally-Induced Abortion: A Review," Ob Gyn Survey, 1979, 177-91, quoted in Saltenberger, 29.) Infection was the leading cause of abortion-related deaths of 104 women in a CDC report. (A. M. Kimball et al., "Deaths caused by Pulmonary Thromboembolism After Legally Induced Abortion, " American Journal Ob & Gyn, 15 September 1978, 169-74, quoted in Saltenberger 29.) In another study 'documented incomplete abortion caused each of the four deaths from infection.'" D. A. Grimes, et al., "Comparative Risk of Death from Legally Induced Abortion in Hospitals and Non- Hospital Facilities," Ob & Gyn, March 1978, 323-26, quoted in Saltenberger, 29."


2.) On problems with future pregnancies;




010) From a David Reardon flyer of 1986:

"47% Of women in a study stated that they had suffered one or more physical complications following their abortions.

31% Of these stated the complication was very minor and 26% Said it was of a moderate nature, and 35% Said it was very severe.

Of short-term complications: 15% Reported post-operative hemorrhage and 9% Reported infection. Post-operative infections are frequently the result of an incomplete abortion and must be treated by a second operation.

Of long-term, delayed complications: 6% Required a total hysterectomy 8% Reported total or partial blockage of fallopian tubes 6% Got cervical cancer 22% Later had a miscarriage of a wanted child 8% Were diagnosed as suffering from cervical incompetence" (These were random samples, not a poll of all the women.)


3.) On the need for hysterectomies;




012) "According to renowned obstetrician and gynecologist Matthew Bulfin, the reason that . . .estimated figures are so skewed is that Planned Parenthood and the various other agencies that measure maternal complication rates are 'missing vital input for their mortality and morbidity studies by not seeking information from the physicians who see the complications from legal abortions--emergency room physicians and the obstetricians and gynecologists in private practice. The physicians who do the abortions, and the clinics and centers where abortions are done should not be the only sources from which complication statistics are derived.'" Matthew J. J. Bulfin, "Complications of Legal Abortion: A Perspective from Private Practice," quoted in George Grant, Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, (Highland Books, 1998) 84.


or this;




013) "The so-called 'freestanding clinics,' which do over 90% of all abortions in the U.S., are often little better than back-alley operations that have been legalized . . . .' Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecological emergencies . . .encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented by Cates represent substantial under reporting and disregard women's reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment.'" Iffy, "Second trimester Abortions," JAMA, 4 February 1983, 588, quoted in Willke, 98, 99.


and this;




014) Researcher David Reardon says about abortion for fetal handicap: "In addition, since eugenic abortions are almost always late-term, the physical risks of abortion are many times higher than for childbirth. In fact, the odds that a forty-year-old woman will suffer a severe complication from abortion are more than twice as great as the odds that she will have a child with Down's syndrome." Dr. Hymie Gordon, letter on amniocentesis in Primum Non Nocere, newsletter published by The World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life, September 1980, 4-6, quoted in DRABSNM, 236. (Down's babies are found mostly in wombs of these 'older' women.)


4.) On other after effects;




025) "In a study of 1000 women who had abortions in Stockholm, Sweden in 1987, 5.4% were reported to have complications in the form of infection, bleeding or incomplete abortion, fever at over 38 degrees centigrade (1.6%). About one-half (2.8%) were re-admitted to the hospital." G. Fried, E. Ostlund, C. Ullberg, M. Bygdeman" Somatic Complications and Contraceptive Techniques Following Legal Abortion, " Acta Obstet Scand., 68 (1989): 515-521.


and this;




029) "Induced first-trimester abortion is a procedure which removes the conceptus from the uterine cavity before the end of the twelfth gestational week counted from the first day of the last menstrual period. The surgical field, consisting of the vagina, endocervix, and uterine cavity is contaminated because even meticulous surgical scrub cannot sterilize the endocervix. Consequently, postoperative infection must be expected in a number of women." Lars Heisterberg, "Pelvic Inflammatory Disease Following Induced First-Trimester Abortion," Danish Medical Bulletin, 35(1) (February 1988), 64-75, quoted in N.G. Osborne and R.C. Wright, "Effect of preoperative scrub on the bacterial flora of the endocervix and vagina," Obstetrics and Gynecology 50:148-151(1977).


5.) On breast cancer;

That site provides a link to this site here.

6.) On psychological effects;




002) "The most serious psychological damages that occur can be lumped under the condition known as Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS), which is a part of a larger class of disorders called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The PAS victim, through the process of denial, blocks the natural grieving process of the death of her child and often denies her own responsibility in the abortion. The denial or suppression blocks the healing process and the possibility of forgiveness for herself and the others who have been involved in her decision and her abortion. The trauma often manifests itself as a breakdown of function in the psychological, physical, or spiritual areas." J. Denton Collins, M.A., M.F.C.C. MK19363, quoted in Kogut, The Facts of Pro-Life, n.p 61.


Or this;




003) "Dr. Vincent Rue, a clinical psychologist, likened abortion victims to "walking time bombs" and said that little is heard of PAS problems because there is a massive denial among professionals.


Or this;




004) "One doctor reports, 'Since abortion was legalized I have seen hundreds of patients who have had the operation. Approximately 10% expressed very little or no concern . . . Among the other 90% there were all shades of distress, anxiety, heartache and remorse.'" E. A. Quay, "Doctors Note Serious Side Effects on Women Following Abortion," The Wanderer, 16 November 1978, quoted in Saltenberger, 136.


or this;




007) "Up to 43% of 500 women studied showed immediate negative response; the long-term negative response was as great as 50%. Up to 10% of women develop serious psychiatric complications." C. M. Friedman, et al., "The Decision-Making Process and the Outcome of Therapeutic Abortion, "American Journal of Psychiatry, 1974, 1332-7, quoted in Saltenberger, 145.


There is plenty of more data from other sources, but I am out of space and time.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
"All life is sacred," a man roars out in fury whilwww.abovetopsecret.com... carrying a sign with "Death Penalty for illegal immigrants" and a shirt with "God bless our troops and operation Iraq" embroidered in gems and sparkles.

Our society doesn't work on a moral code, we think it does, but it doesn't. We are fine with death and killing, as long as its for a productive purpose in our society.

In our culture, and in most culture, as it has been since before Moses, homicide falls into two different categories: productive and unproductive.

The execution of a murderer, or criminal, is considered, in our society (the United States) as a productive homicide. You are eliminating somebody who is disruptive to our society.

Kills committed by a soldier in combat is considered productive, because it is state sanctioned and for a cause.

The question about abortion, isn't about whether life starts at conception or not. It's really about and always has been about whether the death of a fetus is a productive or unproductive thing for society.

It's murky, the water isn't clear, because both sides had merit. But let's acknowledge what is really about, and stop arguing about things that don't matter.

[edit on 5-11-2010 by WolfofWar]



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar
"All life is sacred," a man roars out in fury while carrying a sign with "Death Penalty for illegal immigrants" and a shirt with "God bless our troops and operation Iraq" embroidered in gems and sparkles.

Our society doesn't work on a moral code, we think it does, but it doesn't. We are find with death and killing, as long as its for a productive purpose in our society.

In our culture, and in most culture, as it has been since before Moses, homicide falls into two different categories: productive and unproductive.

The execution of a murderer, or criminal, is considered, in our society (the United States) as a productive homicide. You are eliminating somebody who is disruptive to our society.

Kills committed by a soldier in combat is considered productive, because it is state sanctioned and for a cause.

The question about abortion, isn't about whether life starts at conception or not. It's really about and always has been about whether the death of a fetus is a productive or unproductive thing for society.

It's murky, the water isn't clear, because both sides had merit. But let's acknowledge what is really about, and stop arguing about things that don't matter.


You said, "we" are fine. I hope that means you are referring to society in general and not your actual beliefs.

I do not believe that homicide is right for any reason what-so-ever. I do not believe that we are right in killing anyone at all. The government -has a right- to do these things legally and even according to the Bible. But just because someone -has a right- to do it, it doesn't make the action itself right.

Sorry to refer to the Bible, but the only analogy I can come up with is the story of the adulteress whom all the jews wanted to stone for her actions. Jesus drew on the ground for a while and then stood up and said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

They had a right by the law to kill the woman. But it was not right to kill the woman.

Applying this understanding to the whole debate, what is right? Do we know nothing? Are we so selfish and foolish as to believe that we judge who deserves to live? Who deserves the more help? Who deserves anything?

If you were to take your case to the judge and say, "I have a fifty-year old veteran and a fetus with the hope for life. Which shall die?" The judge asks you, "Which shall die then? Make your case." How would you convince the judge that one should die?

Frank, if you want to help people, then help people. If you are here to convince others to help other people, then you're working against yourself... narcissism is not a way to convince others to help you, friend.



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
You said, "we" are fine. I hope that means you are referring to society in general and not your actual beliefs.

I do not believe that homicide is right for any reason what-so-ever. I do not believe that we are right in killing anyone at all.



So if a thief were to come into your home, and decided he wished to rape your wife or daughter, and then murder them, with you, you would not commit homicide upon such an individual, because you feel you have no right to do so?

Homicide is by definition the killing of one person by another. Homicide can be justified (acts of self defense, actions of war, state executions) or unjustified (murder, manslaughter etc)

So, what would you do? Kill the man? or let him rape your love ones and kill them all with you?



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   


Why do so many pro-lifers favor war and the national security state? It's not my opinion that they do. it's a fact.

There are also a lot of people that are pro-life that are also anti-war. As an example, the Roman Catholic Church was very much against both Iraq wars, and is also very public about their pro-life stance.

I think that it's hard to make these kinds of generalizations. You are talking about two completely separate issues - war and abortion - two very emotional topics for most individuals.

Yes, there is a very vocal element in our society that is pro-life and pro-national security - Agreed. You sometimes see this among far right evangelicals in the South. But there are also plenty of quiet individuals - not so vocal - that adamantly oppose war and are pro-life.

The media tends to distort and create boxes for viewpoints. Don't buy it. Anyone that has ever witnessed or been affected by the horrors of modern warfare is definitely not a fan of war or the national security state.

Proponents that are both pro-life and pro-national security state would probably argue that these are two completely different issues in terms of causes, scopes, and premises. Abortion is considered by these proponents to be the taking of an innocent life. They view war as simply the defense and protection of the state from known national enemies.



Most of these people that are pro-life are the same people beating the war drums for war with Iran. Or can't you not tell that the same people crying about Obama for killing babies are the same ones criticizing him for (which isn't true anyways) gutting the military?

Again, you are describing a fringe element of the far right. And, yes, they do get a lot of media attention for war-mongering. But they don't necessarily represent that majority viewpoint of most pro-life Americans. Most Americans want us out of these wars in the Middle East. They want the country to be energy independent, and not reliant on the Middle East for oil.

You can be anti-war and pro-life, but that doesn't correlate that the media will give you any attention.



That's true. But a lot of them are also corporate pigs.

We're not talking about the same people. Corporate pigs care very little about the homeless, the hungry, the dispossessed.



Then we should say that most pro-lifers are misguided. As I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of these people believe.

Again, the two are not mutually exclusive. There is definitely a fairly sizable portion of our society that is anti-war and pro-life. But these kinds of individuals aren't pundits on Meet the Press.

Most Americans, as I said before, want us out of these wars in the Middle East.



Right. That's kind of what I'm saying. People who are pro-life need to put the same effort into protecting our nation's civil liberties. Imagine the kind of awakening force we could have if all of these people put their efforts into actually protecting the constitution, and, upholding freedom and liberty.


Unless martial law is implemented, most people will not become politically active. People have no idea what is happening in our governing bodies at the local, state, and national levels.

By contrast, the abortion issue is a highly charged emotional topic with religious connotations. You can't compare the two.

And yes, you are right in the sense that it would be nice if people become more politically active, but I think that's generally an illusion that will only be shattered if and when people are directly impacted - as in the case of martial law.



This God of yours doesn't command humans to go to war with other nations.


I never said He did.



All of these actions are made by humans, unless you want to say that this God of yours is bringing these things down on humanity for punishment.

I do believe in Divine retribution, yes. When society acts in an immoral and reprehensible manner, there are consequences. We have plenty of historical and theological evidence that this is the case.



National disasters don't prove that this God is angry at people. National disasters have existed through the beginning of time.

If you are a student of the Bible, you would disagree with this statement. One example: Noah's generation was decadent and depraved. God brought the flood to destroy the immorality and depravity on the planet at the time. He saved Noah and his family because they were the only righteous people left on Earth. The Bible is full of similar examples where Divine intervention in human affairs occurs.

Natural disasters have existed since the beginning of time. But never at the pace and the scope as what we are seeing today.



No I don't find it strange at all. I believe that the problems can be blamed on humans tampering with the environment, and, natural weather patterns. It's all scientific and has nothing to do with religion.

We are simply coming from different perspectives. There are plenty of natural disasters - unprecedented in scope - that cannot be explained in scientific terms. How do you explain 911, Katrina, the tsunamis, the earthquakes, the flooding? All of these natural disasters are happening faster and faster and faster.

And, I would argue, as our society has become more decadent over time, and we have refused to acknowledge God and repent, God has lifted his veil of protection from us. It's almost as if He were saying, "Fine. You don't want to acknowledge my existence? Good luck on your own."

If you read the Book of Exodus, you will see countless examples of pestilence, disease, etc. sent by God to punish Pharoah and the Egyptians. We might not always understand how God works, but there is plenty of evidence that He exists. He sometimes works in quite mysterious ways.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WolfofWar

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
You said, "we" are fine. I hope that means you are referring to society in general and not your actual beliefs.

I do not believe that homicide is right for any reason what-so-ever. I do not believe that we are right in killing anyone at all.



So if a thief were to come into your home, and decided he wished to rape your wife or daughter, and then murder them, with you, you would not commit homicide upon such an individual, because you feel you have no right to do so?

Homicide is by definition the killing of one person by another. Homicide can be justified (acts of self defense, actions of war, state executions) or unjustified (murder, manslaughter etc)

So, what would you do? Kill the man? or let him rape your love ones and kill them all with you?


Do you know what law enforcement is supposed to do? They are to resolve the situation without using excessive force. This means that they use only what is a necessity to bring the situation under control.

What I want to kill that guy? Oh yeah. Would I do it? I honestly don't know if I have the strength to withstand my emotions in that state or not.

But it does not mean that it is right. Do I have a right? Sort of. No one would blame me for sure. But IS IT RIGHT?

No. It is not. By killing that criminal in the act, I destroyed any chance that he/she had at salvation of any kind.

And just because something can be justified, that does NOT MEAN THAT IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I actually believe this could be one of the major problems with society today : Excuse.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join