death penality and abortion

[Fantasea]

Abortion has no "victims" since the fetus is not yet a human being.

Please identify the scientific 'tipping point', as it were, at which the non-human becomes human.

Or are you referring to the people who were murdered in the abortion clinics that got bombed by religious nutters?

The deaths of these persons only adds to the already horrendous toll. I abhor the violence that took the lives of these victimizers just as much as I abhor the violence that took the lives of their victims.

Unfortunately,those who have killed abortionists mistakenly believe that they were helping their cause. They were not. I regret their actions, and they should have to answer for them.

You neglect to classify as victims the women suffering from mental the condition, Post Abortion Stress Syndrome, who are now being treated by the psychiatric community.

 

[Fantasea]

Abortion is a legal option to an unwanted pregnancy.

You have stripped away everything else to reveal the essence of the question. Any additional words would be superfluous.

Abortion is, of course a procedure which is intended to result in the death of a living fetus. Fetus, of course, being one of the several stages of development of a human between conception and birth.

Legal, is of course, means having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact. When one reads the words written by Justice Harry Blackmun, one understands that Roe v. Wade was, indeed, an instance in which actual fact was not present. He makes it quite clear that emotion, rather than fact, was the sole justification for Roe v. Wade.

Option, is of course, a choice. In this case, the choice is whether an unborn child lives or dies. Whether the child lives or dies is simply the reaction to an emotion.

Unwanted pregnancy? Why should a pregnancy be unwanted? The reasons stated by Roe v. Wade advocates were to enable the victims of rape or incest to avoid 'back alley butchers', and to save the lives of women in danger of death due to complications of the pregnancy.

How many pregnancies result from rape or incest? Given the post-rape treatment regimen; very few.

How many women are in danger of death due to complications of the pregnancy? Given the medical and obstetrical advances, very few.

So, why is the total of abortions in the US, since Roe v. Wade, rapidly approaching the number of fifty million? Additional decisions, subsquent to Roe v. Wade ignoring fact entirely and concentrating on emotion, removed any restrictions on abortion.

The chief reasons for abortion boiled down to two; to avoid the embarrassment of a pregnancy or because the pregnancy occurred at an inconvenient time. To a limited extent, the gender of the child is the determinant.

Anything here to scientifically or medically justify the legal killing of a child in the womb? If so, I don't see it.

Roe v. Wade is nothing more than a sop. It was offered as a way to quiet a relatively small, but extremely vocal, group that was fostering a limited agenda. The problem with these kinds of legal opinions is that, in their simplicity, they provide ample opportunity for the 'law of unintended consequences' to rear its ugly head and run amock.

Does anyone think that any of the early advocates, in their wildest dreams, had anticipated that in the next thirty years, the number of US abortions would match the total current population of England?

In the fable, once out of the bottle, the Genie expands to monstrous proportions. Having finally recognized the horror of the carnage wrought by this Genie, it's time for the struggle to get it back into the bottle.

 

[Arch Enemy]

I'm happy to see my favorite "slut" back in action, disemboweling our new young protege Arch Enemy. This poor boy seems to have lacked proper guidance from a father figure who would have taught him to respect and adore women. He is anti-abortion, probabily goes to church everyweek (hypocrit in training) sitting next to his Mommy while a boiling caldron of contempt. On top of it he probabily follows the "Bush Doctrine" written for the Texas macho man, to hit on the little phillys (aka school sluts) to show his equally inadequate friends that he is indeed... a man. After showing his distain for this sub-human, he feels that she should suffer for her sins and have the baby, starting the ignorant cycle all over again. This way when he gets older and knocks up some other unsuspecting girl and has a son... he can hit on the daughter of the slut! Life is good in Dumbfu*kistan!

Do you know what they call kids like this in Texas?... a good Christian boy!

I almost puked my insides when I read this. First off, I am not a republican nor Conservative so why do you have to use Stereotypes of another group for me?

You have a false sense of my religious beliefs. Before you comment on my beliefs, learn about them. This is all you have to say? You come to this website to talk sh*t about someone you don't even know? You criticize me for "Going to church and sitting next to my mother" who is really the cool person? a f*Ker like you who doesn't even show compassion to his family.. your daddy probably beats you and called it a game huh? See I can play the false accusations-to-higher-my-low-self-esteem game as well. I am a Liberal and I don't even wanna know if you are one.

I am sorry if I offended you there Franklin. I simply used the word "Slut" to make my point..I hardly use that word, the only times I DO use the word "Slut" is if I am referring to a girl who uses sex to get things pure hard work wouldn't, this can also apply to gold-digging women and those who use sex in order to show their friends their "dominance". Maybe it wasn't the correct choice of words, but don't act like a snob (French, I presume) lady who wants to marry her way into their strict traditional life style.

 

[anomaly]

That's a bullshit claim, backed by those who will always criticize those who do not agree with one of their pet causes.

You want a fraud, look at Martin Luther King.

"You want a fraud, look at Martin Luther King"

Woah, wait there NYU. What do you mean by this?

 

[anomaly]

I almost puked my insides when I read this. First off, I am not a republican nor Conservative so why do you have to use Stereotypes of another group for me?

You have a false sense of my religious beliefs. Before you comment on my beliefs, learn about them. This is all you have to say? You come to this website to talk sh*t about someone you don't even know? You criticize me for "Going to church and sitting next to my mother" who is really the cool person? a f*Ker like you who doesn't even show compassion to his family.. your daddy probably beats you and called it a game huh? See I can play the false accusations-to-higher-my-low-self-esteem game as well. I am a Liberal and I don't even wanna know if you are one.

I am sorry if I offended you there Franklin. I simply used the word "Slut" to make my point..I hardly use that word, the only times I DO use the word "Slut" is if I am referring to a girl who uses sex to get things pure hard work wouldn't, this can also apply to gold-digging women and those who use sex in order to show their friends their "dominance". Maybe it wasn't the correct choice of words, but don't act like a snob (French, I presume) lady who wants to marry her way into their strict traditional life style.

I gotta agree with Arch enemy here. He has religious beliefs, as do most Americans. If you, Contrarian, feel he is being taught to be a hypocrite, so be it. I myself share that opinion, and I also share your opinion that religion is itself meaningless and all together a very negative thing. But that is an opinion. Do not use an opinion to put down a religious person, and stereotype and generalize like crazy, as you obviously have, Contrarian. Religous beliefs, and anti-religious beliefs, are just that: beliefs. That being said, it is completely useless to claim intellectual superiority simply because of you believing something. Atheism is as much a belief as Christianity, and it is useless to debate them. Believe what you want, everyone here, but do not use mere beliefs, with no evidence either way, to stereotype and completely generalize another.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Atheism is as much a belief as Christianity
Right
and it is useless to debate them.
Wrong
Believe what you want, everyone here, but do not use mere beliefs, with no evidence either way, to stereotype and completely generalize another.
Problem: the word evidence in this case is incredibly ambigious. I would suggest that mere personal experience would be considered historical evidence. Or do you want scientific evidence? Because that would require some sort of experement, within a controled environment, and your ability to witness a result.
Which are you referring to?

 

[anomaly]

Atheism is as much a belief as Christianity
Right
and it is useless to debate them.
Wrong
Believe what you want, everyone here, but do not use mere beliefs, with no evidence either way, to stereotype and completely generalize another.
Problem: the word evidence in this case is incredibly ambigious. I would suggest that mere personal experience would be considered historical evidence. Or do you want scientific evidence? Because that would require some sort of experement, within a controled environment, and your ability to witness a result.
Which are you referring to?

I (key word there) feel it is all together useless to debate religion.

As for evidence, can mere personal experience really justify something as big as a religious belief? However strongly one feels of their personal experience, it in no way gives evidence for the possibility of the (non)existense of any God. I suppose I am looking for scientific evidence. And there is no evidence that shows that God must exist, nor is there any showing that God does not exist. Without any such evidence, all religious beliefs are founded upon seemingly subjective personal experience. They are just beliefs, not facts, and cannot be proven.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Atheism is as much a belief as Christianity,

Umm, no, it isn't. Atheism is a lack of "belief". I used to think Santa Clause existed - that was a belief, but I grew up and realised that was nonsense. I used to believe that somebody called God existed, but likewise I grew up.

I have no problem with other people's religious beliefs as such. If other people want to organise their own lives aling those lines and it makes them happy, that's fine with me.

Just respect my right to organise my own life differently.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

I am sorry if I offended you there Franklin. I simply used the word "Slut" to make my point..I hardly use that word, the only times I DO use the word "Slut" is if I am referring to a girl who uses sex to get things pure hard work wouldn't,

Honey, if sex ain't hard work then you ain't doin' it right!

 

[anomaly]

Umm, no, it isn't. Atheism is a lack of "belief". I used to think Santa Clause existed - that was a belief, but I grew up and realised that was nonsense. I used to believe that somebody called God existed, but likewise I grew up.

I have no problem with other people's religious beliefs as such. If other people want to organise their own lives aling those lines and it makes them happy, that's fine with me.

Just respect my right to organise my own life differently.

My bad, Naughty.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I (key word there) feel it is all together useless to debate religion.

As for evidence, can mere personal experience really justify something as big as a religious belief? However strongly one feels of their personal experience, it in no way gives evidence for the possibility of the (non)existense of any God. I suppose I am looking for scientific evidence. And there is no evidence that shows that God must exist, nor is there any showing that God does not exist. Without any such evidence, all religious beliefs are founded upon seemingly subjective personal experience. They are just beliefs, not facts, and cannot be proven.

Firstly, if you do not believe that people's minds can be changed through logical argument then debating religion is pointless. But if you do believe logical argument can change opinion, and you believe opinion can lead to a life change, then it is arguably a necessity to debate religion.

Then you are looking for scientific proof in a matter of historical fact. How can I possibly prove to you that I went to class today in a scientific manner? Short of testing for my DNA, which might or might not be recent and which might or might not be present. But none the less, I was in class today. But all you have to support that is the testimony of myself and others who were there. You are arguing that without being able to scientifically prove something, (which mind you can only be done when something is taken through all steps of the scientific method), then it simply cannot be reasonably accepted as true. That is a ridiculous way to live life, because then the only way you can ever believe anything is if you take it to a lab and put it under a microscope personally, because even the scientific records of someone you might trust are subject to this tainting personal experience theory of yours. Do not make the mistake of thinking the only way something can be proved is by using the scientific method, because that is simply not accurate.

 

[anomaly]

Firstly, if you do not believe that people's minds can be changed through logical argument then debating religion is pointless. But if you do believe logical argument can change opinion, and you believe opinion can lead to a life change, then it is arguably a necessity to debate religion.

Then you are looking for scientific proof in a matter of historical fact. How can I possibly prove to you that I went to class today in a scientific manner? Short of testing for my DNA, which might or might not be recent and which might or might not be present. But none the less, I was in class today. But all you have to support that is the testimony of myself and others who were there. You are arguing that without being able to scientifically prove something, (which mind you can only be done when something is taken through all steps of the scientific method), then it simply cannot be reasonably accepted as true. That is a ridiculous way to live life, because then the only way you can ever believe anything is if you take it to a lab and put it under a microscope personally, because even the scientific records of someone you might trust are subject to this tainting personal experience theory of yours. Do not make the mistake of thinking the only way something can be proved is by using the scientific method, because that is simply not accurate.

In order to avoid further confrontation (as you may have guessed, I absolutely hate debating religion), let's see if I can compromise. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence, none for God's existence or lack there of. If you think you can prove God exists or vis-versa, go ahead and try your luck. In this debate, I think I'll plead agnosticism.

 

[Naughty Nurse]

Then you are looking for scientific proof in a matter of historical fact. How can I possibly prove to you that I went to class today in a scientific manner? Short of testing for my DNA, which might or might not be recent and which might or might not be present. But none the less, I was in class today. But all you have to support that is the testimony of myself and others who were there. You are arguing that without being able to scientifically prove something, (which mind you can only be done when something is taken through all steps of the scientific method), then it simply cannot be reasonably accepted as true.

Nonsense, dear boy!

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that you went to class today, because I know from experience that people do that. You may, of course, be lying for some strange reason. But what the hell - doesn't affetc me.

But to believe that some deity created everything (and in just 6 days, no less!)? That stretches my powers of belief way beyond breaking point!

 

[sebastiansdreams]

In order to avoid further confrontation (as you may have guessed, I absolutely hate debating religion), let's see if I can compromise. All I'm saying is that there's no evidence, none for God's existence or lack there of. If you think you can prove God exists or vis-versa, go ahead and try your luck. In this debate, I think I'll plead agnosticism.

So you really are still taking the stance of not believing anything you have not personally examined with a microscope? Furthermore, you trust no one purely on their word. My question then is this? How can you enter the world of acedemy without taking people at their word? A teacher tells you something and you immedietly say "prove it scientifically," they're gonna look at you like a lunatic. You'll never believe anything in history ever happened, because it's all only heresay and possibility, it can't possibly be proven. Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[anomaly]

So you really are still taking the stance of not believing anything you have not personally examined with a microscope? Furthermore, you trust no one purely on their word. My question then is this? How can you enter the world of acedemy without taking people at their word? A teacher tells you something and you immedietly say "prove it scientifically," they're gonna look at you like a lunatic. You'll never believe anything in history ever happened, because it's all only heresay and possibility, it can't possibly be proven. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Woah, woah, there. I think you are putting words in my mouth here, as all I'm saying is that, in the question of whether God exists, there is no way to prove it. That's it. Do not widen that to apply to other questions, debates, etc. If you believe you can prove God's existence, I offer you this opportunity. Also, the question of whether God exists is not comparable to anything you mention here. As regards to history, someone was there, someone saw it happening, and wrote it down. Did anyone see God create earth? Of course not.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Nonsense, dear boy!

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that you went to class today, because I know from experience that people do that. You may, of course, be lying for some strange reason. But what the hell - doesn't affetc me.

But to believe that some deity created everything (and in just 6 days, no less!)? That stretches my powers of belief way beyond breaking point!

What I find more fascinating than the Creation theory is the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory is a scientifcally constructed theory which is the logical equivalent to stating that if a dumpster were somehow to implode, it could feasibly create a working 747. It just isn't reasonable without something having some sort of control over it. I mean look at the reality of this world. Things occuring naturally simply do not work towards order. I'll go into detail if you absolutely need me to, but I assure you, things occuring in nature to not work towards order, but towards dissorder. The assumption that there is no God and that all of this that happened around you just happened by chance is far more straining on the intellect that a diety.

OH, and by the way, Hebrew scripture says six yom. That is translated as both "day" and "period of time, undeclared." It is not scientifically accurate to say the world was created in six days. But why is it necesary to assume that it was twenty-four hour periods arguably before night and day ever existed?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Woah, woah, there. I think you are putting words in my mouth here, as all I'm saying is that, in the question of whether God exists, there is no way to prove it. That's it. Do not widen that to apply to other questions, debates, etc. If you believe you can prove God's existence, I offer you this opportunity. Also, the question of whether God exists is not comparable to anything you mention here. As regards to history, someone was there, someone saw it happening, and wrote it down. Did anyone see God create earth? Of course not.

Okay, so why is that you can only believe that God exists if it can be proven in a science lab (which I obviously do not have at my disposal anyhow), but anything else you will take testimony on? You're saying that you will only believe in God if he can be proven through scientific method, but that is the only thing you won't believe in unless it can be proven scientifically. That makes even less sense. No, no one saw God created the earth, but there is the argument that God came down to Moses and wrote the commandments in stone. But I assume you don't believe that either, even though it is historically documented.

 

[RightinNYC]

"You want a fraud, look at Martin Luther King"

Woah, wait there NYU. What do you mean by this?

There have been many allegations of impropreity against MLK by many people, ranging from fathering numerous illegitimate children to picking up suitcases full of money and disappearing with them.

Unlike the criticism levelled against Mother Teresa, the criticism of MLK has come from reputable sources, such as Thurgood Marshall.

 

[anomaly]

Okay, so why is that you can only believe that God exists if it can be proven in a science lab (which I obviously do not have at my disposal anyhow), but anything else you will take testimony on? You're saying that you will only believe in God if he can be proven through scientific method, but that is the only thing you won't believe in unless it can be proven scientifically. That makes even less sense. No, no one saw God created the earth, but there is the argument that God came down to Moses and wrote the commandments in stone. But I assume you don't believe that either, even though it is historically documented.

There is no historical evidence for God's existence outside of the Bible. And Moses does not exist outside of the Bible, there is no historical record of him. And we can end this entire debate if you'd take up my challenge for you: prove, any way you'd like, that God exists.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

There is no historical evidence for God's existence outside of the Bible. And Moses does not exist outside of the Bible, there is no historical record of him. And we can end this entire debate if you'd take up my challenge for you: prove, any way you'd like, that God exists.

There's no historical references to God outside of the Bible? Are you looney? Um okay, the writings of St. Augustine. That's historical evidence outside of the Bible. Better yet, I can personally testify that God exists because I have a personal relationship with him. How's that for historical argumentation?

I love your little psuedo-challenge. It's ridiculous in more ways than I can begin to explain to you. But I will just offer this. I cannot prove to you, right here and now that God exists any more than you can prove to me that the sun exists. Go on, prove it. Right now. Any way you like. Show me that the sun exists and we'll end the discussion. But don't bother giving me some notes on an experiment done by some scientist, because there's no more accuracy in that than me simply telling you that God exists because I have a relationship with him. Both are simply testimonial, not scientific fact.

 

[Arch Enemy]

This really should be a debate of its own, this is my view.

I believe there is a divine power, a power which has been seen through-out generations and through-out history. This power has been seen through many different types of glasses and has been interpreted many times.
Yes what I am saying is basically I believe ALL religions to be correct. They've all seen the way this divine power has worked and how it works through other people. Though their own eyes interpret it as something different from the rest of the world, I can guarantee you that you will NEVER find two people with the exact SAME religious views.

I call the divine power and the source of this divine power "god". The Muslims see this divine power as "Allah", Greeks as "Zeus", Norse as "Odin" so on and so forth. This doesn't mean I don't send praise to God, I do send praise to god, I just feel my God, The God of the Hebrews, is the same "God" as Allah just through my interpretation.

Right, some people have molded their views and their beliefs further than the divine power itself. The Greeks see the act of (what I call Miracles) as different Gods in their own rights, same for the Norse and the Egyptian. My faith, however, see these miracles through a historical prophet who was undeniably real and undeniably a prophet... some like to call him "Jesus" or Messiah.

As for Buddhism, I consider it a Philosophy, not just an ordinary Philosophy one filled with very spiritual tuning and one which has its own rights and its own strengths. I pick Websters definition of "Religion" (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Religion&x=0&y=0) basically "b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance"

As strange as it sounds I follow the ideals which Michele DE Nostredame subliminally gave to us. He predicted the end of the world as many different things, most of these things could seriously be inaccurate but it shows us that no man can predict the end and it is still disputable how the end will come upon us. Whether it is a big-battle where we team up with the Gods to fight against the Giants or Years of destruction.. we all know it will happen.. just a matter of time.

A lot of things I am still trying to piece together for my own personal religious point of views.

 

[anomaly]

There's no historical references to God outside of the Bible? Are you looney? Um okay, the writings of St. Augustine. That's historical evidence outside of the Bible. Better yet, I can personally testify that God exists because I have a personal relationship with him. How's that for historical argumentation?

I love your little psuedo-challenge. It's ridiculous in more ways than I can begin to explain to you. But I will just offer this. I cannot prove to you, right here and now that God exists any more than you can prove to me that the sun exists. Go on, prove it. Right now. Any way you like. Show me that the sun exists and we'll end the discussion. But don't bother giving me some notes on an experiment done by some scientist, because there's no more accuracy in that than me simply telling you that God exists because I have a relationship with him. Both are simply testimonial, not scientific fact.

Look up in the sky, tomorrow morning. I say, what is that bright body you see? I call it the sun. Now you tell me, where is God?

 

[anomaly]

This really should be a debate of its own, this is my view.

I believe there is a divine power, a power which has been seen through-out generations and through-out history. This power has been seen through many different types of glasses and has been interpreted many times.
Yes what I am saying is basically I believe ALL religions to be correct. They've all seen the way this divine power has worked and how it works through other people. Though their own eyes interpret it as something different from the rest of the world, I can guarantee you that you will NEVER find two people with the exact SAME religious views.

I call the divine power and the source of this divine power "god". The Muslims see this divine power as "Allah", Greeks as "Zeus", Norse as "Odin" so on and so forth. This doesn't mean I don't send praise to God, I do send praise to god, I just feel my God, The God of the Hebrews, is the same "God" as Allah just through my interpretation.

Right, some people have molded their views and their beliefs further than the divine power itself. The Greeks see the act of (what I call Miracles) as different Gods in their own rights, same for the Norse and the Egyptian. My faith, however, see these miracles through a historical prophet who was undeniably real and undeniably a prophet... some like to call him "Jesus" or Messiah.

As for Buddhism, I consider it a Philosophy, not just an ordinary Philosophy one filled with very spiritual tuning and one which has its own rights and its own strengths. I pick Websters definition of "Religion" (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Religion&x=0&y=0) basically "b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance"

As strange as it sounds I follow the ideals which Michele DE Nostredame subliminally gave to us. He predicted the end of the world as many different things, most of these things could seriously be inaccurate but it shows us that no man can predict the end and it is still disputable how the end will come upon us. Whether it is a big-battle where we team up with the Gods to fight against the Giants or Years of destruction.. we all know it will happen.. just a matter of time.

A lot of things I am still trying to piece together for my own personal religious point of views.

This argument I can respect, I know too many Christians that claim that the 4 billion non-Chirstians on the earth are doomed to Hell.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Look up in the sky, tomorrow morning. I say, what is that bright body you see? I call it the sun. Now you tell me, where is God?

The sun? That's just a lightbulb, you can't possibly expect me to believe that that's the sun can you? I mean really prove it. But moreover, let's follow that argument. So if you can see something it must exist? Then the "crazy people" who see God everyday, must be obvious proof that God exists right?

 

[anomaly]

The sun? That's just a lightbulb, you can't possibly expect me to believe that that's the sun can you? I mean really prove it. But moreover, let's follow that argument. So if you can see something it must exist? Then the "crazy people" who see God everyday, must be obvious proof that God exists right?

It's called empirical evidence. Anyone not blind can see the sun, we know it's there. But only some can see God, only some speak with him. Am I defected, am I somehow not right? And it is because of this lack of ability to see your God that I am now doomed to Hell? That's a religion I want no part of.