Parents Throwing Babies In Front Of Cars/You Cannot Survive Without My Body

[mixedmedia]

Force my religion on you. You sound like a xenophobic biggot. How is discussing my views, thus entering them into t he arena of ideas "forcing my religion" on anybody. Did I say anything about converting to Christianity. No, I said that we should save babies! Biggot, you xenophobic biggot who doesn't want me to discuss my religious views simply because you don't like them.

I thought your initial post was well considered and thoughtful. Even though, I disagree with you in some ways. Even though I am a liberal democrat with personal connections to the practice of abortion myself, you might be surprised at how much we could agree on the issue.

I can't help but notice how kind and gentle anti-abortion folks can be when talking about the unborn yet so harsh and unforgiving with the living.

 

[battleax86]

I thought your initial post was well considered and thoughtful. Even though, I disagree with you in some ways. Even though I am a liberal democrat with personal connections to the practice of abortion myself, you might be surprised at how much we could agree on the issue.

I can't help but notice how kind and gentle anti-abortion folks can be when talking about the unborn yet so harsh and unforgiving with the living.

To begin with, the unborn are living. Secondly, I understand what you're saying. It just depends on the person. I know people who are exactly the opposite: pro-abortion, but anti-death penalty.

 

[mixedmedia]

To begin with, the unborn are living. Secondly, I understand what you're saying. It just depends on the person. I know people who are exactly the opposite: pro-abortion, but anti-death penalty.

Sure they are living. Just words, battleax. I think you know what I mean. I used to be pro-abortion, anti-death penalty. Although, I think pro-abortion is an inaccurate term for those who are pro-choice. Personally I have never known anyone who cheerleads for the practice of abortion. The issue has always been about a woman's choice.
But anyway, abortion is an issue that needs to be examined with more depth by the left. It is morally questionable. As is war and the death penalty.

 

[battleax86]

Sure they are living. Just words, battleax. I think you know what I mean.

No, I don't think I do.

I used to be pro-abortion, anti-death penalty. Although, I think pro-abortion is an inaccurate term for those who are pro-choice. Personally I have never known anyone who cheerleads for the practice of abortion. The issue has always been about a woman's choice.

Well, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) cheered for it, but that's beside the point. When one supports the choice of another to commit any action, they are, by default, supporting that action. To say that one can be pro-choice on abortion, but not pro-abortion, would be the same as saying that one is pro-choice on rape, but not pro-rape.

But anyway, abortion is an issue that needs to be examined with more depth by the left. It is morally questionable. As is war and the death penalty.

Abortion is as "morally questionable" as any other type of murder. As for war, it is sometimes necessary. Also, the death penalty serves to protect society from the threat of those who have demonstrated the capacity to commit premeditated murder. It needs to stay.

 

[Kelzie]

Well, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) cheered for it, but that's beside the point. When one supports the choice of another to commit any action, they are, by default, supporting that action. To say that one can be pro-choice on abortion, but not pro-abortion, would be the same as saying that one is pro-choice on rape, but not pro-rape.
.

I actually prefer the use of a person who is pro-gun rights, but doesn't want a gun themselves. Rape has such a negative emotion tagged with it that it automatically makes whatever you're talking about just as negative. Unless...you were going for that...

 

[battleax86]

I actually prefer the use of a person who is pro-gun rights, but doesn't want a gun themselves. Rape has such a negative emotion tagged with it that it automatically makes whatever you're talking about just as negative. Unless...you were going for that...

Yeah, I was kinda going for that...

 

[mixedmedia]

No, I don't think I do.


Well, Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) cheered for it, but that's beside the point. When one supports the choice of another to commit any action, they are, by default, supporting that action. To say that one can be pro-choice on abortion, but not pro-abortion, would be the same as saying that one is pro-choice on rape, but not pro-rape..

What I mean is that just because one supports an individual's right to choose an abortion doesn't mean that they would encourage someone to get pregnant so they could run out and take advantage of an abortion. Go team!As of now, abortion is a legal procedure and a right that is supported by at least half of America's citizens. Comparing it to rape is an obvious attempt to "spin" the issue.

Abortion is as "morally questionable" as any other type of murder. As for war, it is sometimes necessary. Also, the death penalty serves to protect society from the threat of those who have demonstrated the capacity to commit premeditated murder. It needs to stay.

Well your username is battleax....I should have guessed. I will never understand the mixed absolutes of the pro-life, pro-death crowd. It seems a philosophy of convenience.

 

[battleax86]

What I mean is that just because one supports an individual's right to choose an abortion doesn't mean that they would encourage someone to get pregnant so they could run out and take advantage of an abortion. Go team!

As I already explained, when one supports the choice of another to commit any action, they are, by default, supporting that action.

As of now, abortion is a legal procedure and a right that is supported by at least half of America's citizens. Comparing it to rape is an obvious attempt to "spin" the issue.

I mentioned rape as example to show one cannot be pro-choice on abortion yet not pro-abortion, in the same way that one cannot be pro-choice on rape, yet not pro-rape. However, now that you mention it, abortion is far worse than rape. Rape only violates one's rights for a short time. Abortion violates them permanently. As for the legality argument, that is really irrelevant. Slavery was once legal and supported by a huge portion of America's citizens, but is now considered a stain on our history. The same can be said of Hitler's campaign against the Jews or the Jim Crow era. The legality of a practice does not make it any less wrong or repugnant.

Well your username is battleax....I should have guessed. I will never understand the mixed absolutes of the pro-life, pro-death crowd. It seems a philosophy of convenience.

I don't see how this is the case. Murder is always wrong. However, not all types of killing is murder. Killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder and is usually necessary to preserve one's life. The same applies for the death penalty. It removes the risk that a premeditated murderer poses to everyone who he comes in contact with. It is neither a philosophy of convenience nor "mixed absolutes." It's simply a little more reasoned and complex than "killing is always murder" or "killing is always OK."

 

[shuamort]

As I already explained, when one supports the choice of another to commit any action, they are, by default, supporting that action.

I support the idea of people being pro-life should they choose that for themselves. That doesn't mean I support people being pro-life. It simple means that I support their right to choose that for themselves. There's no complicity there.

 

[mixedmedia]

I don't see how this is the case. Murder is always wrong. However, not all types of killing is murder. Killing an enemy combatant in war is not murder and is usually necessary to preserve one's life. The same applies for the death penalty. It removes the risk that a premeditated murderer poses to everyone who he comes in contact with. It is neither a philosophy of convenience nor "mixed absolutes." It's simply a little more reasoned and complex than "killing is always murder" or "killing is always OK."

And you feel it is okay for you and/or folks who believe as you do to have the final word on this issue? Sorry, I'm not much comfortable with that. If war is not murder, then neither is terrorism. Yeah, I can spin it too. Would you prefer to lose the unborn child of a loved one to a bomb rather than an abortion? Who is it that does the math on these moral equations? Hopefully not a character named battleax. Sorry, couldn't help it.

Immoral acts hold consequences for the spiritual fate all of mankind, not just those who perform them. I think we ought to give more consideration to established ideas on conflict and punishment.

The questions are very complex. I guess we can agree on that.

You manner is much too confident. I have often found it foolish to put my trust in those who think they have all answers. You remind me of someone else on this forum.....

 

[Mixed View]

Here is the scenario…

A mother and her 3-year-old daughter are walking along the side of a road. While walking, a large truck comes speeding up the side of the road uncontrollably and is heading straight for the daughter. The mother has two choices. She can either pull the daughter to safety, and risk being killed by this out of control vehicle, or she can dive to safety, leaving the daughter there to die. What do you think this mother will do?

The abortion lobby has promulgated a "compassionate" and "understanding" angle in which they are drawing support, even from Christian conservatives, for the continued legalization of abortion. Upon this claim they are labeling persons like myself who support a complete ban on abortion as extremists. This scenario states that abortion can never be totally eliminated because their needs to be a clause for cases in which it "might" affect the health of the mother.

The reason why I emphasize the word might is because prenatal medicine is not an exacting science. They can never say definitively whether a mother will die, or suffer long-term medical problems if she goes through with the birth. At best, they can only present the worst-case scenario, which is simply a possibility. I would hate to kill my baby because I "might" be in danger.

To the mothers reading this. Faced with the opening scenario, how many of you would take a chance on letting the speeding truck hit you in order to save the life of your child. As a father of two it would be a no-brainer. I would save my kid's lives even if I knew definitively that I would die as a result. This is what it means to be a father, and the lives of my children mean that much to me!

Unfortunately, we have liberal Democrats and socially moderate Republicans throwing babies out in front of moving cars, using this belief as justification. I am compassionate in believing that it would be a very difficult decision if I found out that my lovely wife's life would be in danger if she went through with another birth. But, knowing that no doctor can tell me definitively that this would be the case, I would save the baby, and trust God to save my wife. It's called faith.

I will be the first to admit that I am not the moral compass for the entire world to watch and exemplify. I am not 100% right 100% of the time, but God's word is. Therefore, if I make a moral error, I do not compound it by further turning away from God's word to "fix" the problem. Conceiving a child out of wedlock, which is immoral cannot be fixed by aborting a child, which is also immoral. Immorality cannot and should not be justified by further immorality.

I say this as a precursor to the following group of statements. Abortion is a real issue for me for the following reasons. I have a younger sister whom I love dearly, and we are extremely close as we are only two years apart in age. Upon her conception one of my parents wanted to abort her due to their temporary financial status. The idea of not having my younger sister in my life is more than I dare think about. Furthermore, my wife would have been aborted, had it not been for the intervention of a wonderful, older, Christian lady. Even still there remain situations that hit even closer to home.

Neither of my children were planned pregnancies. Not only were they not planned; my children are a mere fifteen months apart in age. When we found out about the first pregnancy my wife and I were not married, and I was serving in the church. I was living with my parents, making $6.76 per hour working at a Christian Bookstore, and really had nothing to offer a child or a wife.

Needless to say abortion became an option as many people around us advocated for the procedure. We were not having it though! We had already made plans for marriage, though we were not yet engaged. Therefore we followed through with the marriage, I was blessed with better employment, and we moved into our own place once we were officially married. Anyone who has seen my daughter knows how beautiful she is, and knows what a travesty it would have been to murder her in the womb.

Abortion was thrown at us again when my son was unexpectedly conceived just six months after my daughter's birth. Again, we were not interested, and we had our son. And yes, he is as beautiful as my daughter. Every struggle that I face as a result of having two kids at this stage of my life is worth it to me every time one of them comes up and hugs me.

I think that it is time that we stand up to the pro-abortion lobby, and make our voice be heard! There is only one instance in which it is legal to kill one human to preserve the life of another, and that is self-defense. Abortion is not self-defense because no unborn child can attack its mother.

The church needs to take a hard stand against these radical liberals who will throw millions of babies out in front of moving cars in order to advance their political careers. Ask yourself this question, "Is it okay for a mother to kill her child to save her own life?" Again I know in practice these are difficult decisions to be made, but there must be a moral compass on which to base these decisions. We cannot rely solely on science.

Remember, Jesus Christ willingly laid down His life that you and I "might" live. Therefore as parents, we need to be willing to lay down our lives for our children, those that are in and out of the womb. Help stop the Liberal Left, and the Moderate Right's pro-choice agenda by standing up and telling them that our children have every right to live! Tell them that as loving parents, if ever given the choice, we would gladly lay down our lives to preserve the lives of our children. Expose the invalidity of this Liberal claim, and push the pro-abortion lobby back!

Remember, being pro-choice is equivalent to being pro-abortion. It is equivalent to saying, "I would push my child from in front of a moving vehicle, but I would stand silently and watch another mother push her child in front of a moving vehicle." We have to realize that Abortion is not about women, it's about babies.

Remember, the pro-choice stance was created by the pro-abortion spinsters to make pro-life appear to be extreme. They told moral individuals like yourself that it is okay for you to be against abortion, just don't impose upon their rights to make choices. They made it a moral issue for us, while it continues to be a legal issue for them. They are seeking to pacify us by making us pro-choice, or moderate, while they remain extreme.

It is extreme circumstances like the one used by liberal Democrats that causes us to leave the door open for these modern day Herods to keep the murder of millions of children legal. It is time for the body of Christ to stop opposing death with choice, and lift up a biblical standard and oppose death with life. God Bless You All, and see you at the polls!

I believe that death penalty should be illegal as well as abortion simply for the same reason you hate abortion. It is not up to us to choose!

 

[battleax86]

I support the idea of people being pro-life should they choose that for themselves. That doesn't mean I support people being pro-life. It simple means that I support their right to choose that for themselves. There's no complicity there.

The complicity (and hypocrisy) is in your own quote. You say that you do support people being pro-life if that's what they want to be. Then you say that you don't support people being pro-life. Whether or not they are choosing it for themselves, if you support their holding of that idea, then you support the idea itself. Otherwise, if you don't want people to be pro-life, then you won't support them holding that idea.

Also, we're not just talking about an idea here, we're talking about an act (abortion). The idea that you can support the decision of someone to commit an act without supporting that act itself defies all reason (see the rape analogy).

And you feel it is okay for you and/or folks who believe as you do to have the final word on this issue?

Am I supposed to feel that it's not OK for people who believe as I do to have the final word on the issue? Do you feel OK that people who feel the way you do about rape or murdering toddlers have the final word on the issue?

Sorry, I'm not much comfortable with that.

You're a liberal Democrat. I wouldn't expect it from you. :lol:

If war is not murder, then neither is terrorism.

Terrorism, by its very nature, is targeted to kill innocents. Intentionally killing innocents is murder. War, at least the way that the U.S. fights it, targets only our enemies. Any innocents killed are by accident, not intent. Therefore, terrorism is murder, but war is not.

Yeah, I can spin it too.

"Too"? I'm not spinning anything. Murder is the unjustified killing of innocents. War is not for the purpose of killing innocents. That's why the intentional killing of innocents is known as a war crime. But of course I know you can spin. That's why you're a Democrat. :lol:

Would you prefer to lose the unborn child of a loved one to a bomb rather than an abortion?

I wouldn't prefer to lose a loved one at all. That's why we make war on terrorists and those who support them.

Who is it that does the math on these moral equations?

Generally, God does. However, He gave us enough common sense to determine that intentionally killing innocents is wrong and killing in self-defense or the defense of others is acceptable.

Hopefully not a character named battleax. Sorry, couldn't help it.

If all else fails, attack my screenname. :lol:

Immoral acts hold consequences for the spiritual fate all of mankind, not just those who perform them. I think we ought to give more consideration to established ideas on conflict and punishment.

I don't see why these "established ideas" need any further consideration, but you're free to have at it.

The questions are very complex. I guess we can agree on that.

Not very complex. Just complex enough to where you can't make a blanket statement on killing, one way or the other.

You manner is much too confident.

So now I'm supposed to be unsure of what I'm saying? :neutral:

I have often found it foolish to put my trust in those who think they have all answers.

I don't claim to have all the answers and it would be foolish to put your trust in any human. We're all fallible. However, we're also smart enough to use sound logic and call a spade what it is.

You remind me of someone else on this forum.....

Um, ok...

 

[mixedmedia]

Terrorism, by its very nature, is targeted to kill innocents. Intentionally killing innocents is murder. War, at least the way that the U.S. fights it, targets only our enemies. Any innocents killed are by accident, not intent. Therefore, terrorism is murder, but war is not.

So when we killed 100,000 citizens of Edo, now Tokyo, in one night of fire bombing during WWII, it wasn't intentional? We didn't intend to kill citizens? It was an accident? You can't really believe that. You can't really believe that America has never waged war against civilians. The only purpose of that night was to terrorize the Japanese citizenry into submission. It's documented American history. And I can provide many more examples of American aggression against citizens if you like. Give me a day or two and I'll come up with a few dozen. I'll start at the very beginning with the shameful history of our transgressions against native Americans.

You can sit on your high horse and believe that America is a shining example of compassionate warmanship, as if such a thing could ever exist, but it simply isn't the truth. The nature of war is brutal and murderous, always has been, always will be. It is only those with no faith in man's ability to be truly Christ-like who fool themselves into thinking that THEIR side fights "the good fight." There is no such thing.

You skim the surface to justify your shallow argument. But of course, what else could be expected - you are a conservative republican, right?

And just to save you some time, I am not anti-American. I am an American through and through and I love my country.

I want to address more of your post but don't have time right now. I'll try to catch up this weekend.

 

[shuamort]

The complicity (and hypocrisy) is in your own quote. You say that you do support people being pro-life if that's what they want to be. Then you say that you don't support people being pro-life. Whether or not they are choosing it for themselves, if you support their holding of that idea, then you support the idea itself. Otherwise, if you don't want people to be pro-life, then you won't support them holding that idea.

No. That's not what I said. Re-read my statement.

 

[battleax86]

So when we killed 100,000 citizens of Edo, now Tokyo, in one night of fire bombing during WWII, it wasn't intentional? We didn't intend to kill citizens? It was an accident? You can't really believe that. You can't really believe that America has never waged war against civilians. The only purpose of that night was to terrorize the Japanese citizenry into submission. It's documented American history. And I can provide many more examples of American aggression against citizens if you like. Give me a day or two and I'll come up with a few dozen. I'll start at the very beginning with the shameful history of our transgressions against native Americans.

You're bringing up history from decades and centuries ago. I'm talking about the here and now. Nowadays, the American military just about bends over backwards to avoid civilian casualties, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan, although Kosovo and the first Gulf War can also be used as examples. Your attempt to compare U.S. war tactics, especially those of recent years, with the civilian-targeted tactics of our enemies is highly naive and would be laughable if that line of thinking weren't so dangerous.

You can sit on your high horse and believe that America is a shining example of compassionate warmanship, as if such a thing could ever exist, but it simply isn't the truth. The nature of war is brutal and murderous, always has been, always will be. It is only those with no faith in man's ability to be truly Christ-like who fool themselves into thinking that THEIR side fights "the good fight." There is no such thing.

It appears that you have fooled yourself into having faith about man's ability to be Christ-like. Man is inherently evil and cannot be trusted to behave "Christ-like" unless they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It also seems that you have deluded yourself into believing that war is never justified and no side is ever right. Tell me, is every American soldier who killed an enemy combatant in World War II a murderer? Is every American soldier who has ever killed an enemy combatant a murderer?

You skim the surface to justify your shallow argument. But of course, what else could be expected - you are a conservative republican, right?

You consider war to be murder simply because people die, without taking the cause of the deaths into account, but I'm the one with the shallow argument? :lol:

And just to save you some time, I am not anti-American. I am an American through and through and I love my country.

Could've fooled me. :roll:

I want to address more of your post but don't have time right now. I'll try to catch up this weekend.

Ready when you are.

No. That's not what I said. Re-read my statement.

OK, let's look at your statement...

I support the idea of people being pro-life should they choose that for themselves. That doesn't mean I support people being pro-life. It simple means that I support their right to choose that for themselves. There's no complicity there.

Yep, looks like my original assessment stands:

The complicity (and hypocrisy) is in your own quote. You say that you do support people being pro-life if that's what they want to be. Then you say that you don't support people being pro-life. Whether or not they are choosing it for themselves, if you support their holding of that idea, then you support the idea itself. Otherwise, if you don't want people to be pro-life, then you won't support them holding that idea.

 

[Kelzie]

It appears that you have fooled yourself into having faith about man's ability to be Christ-like. Man is inherently evil and cannot be trusted to behave "Christ-like" unless they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It also seems that you have deluded yourself into believing that war is never justified and no side is ever right. Tell me, is every American soldier who killed an enemy combatant in World War II a murderer? Is every American soldier who has ever killed an enemy combatant a murderer?

Really can't say anything to this but NO. Heard of Gandhi? He wasn't exactly a Christian. People don't have to believe in your religion to be good, likewise, I'm sure plenty of evil people believe in Jesus.

 

[battleax86]

Really can't say anything to this but NO. Heard of Gandhi? He wasn't exactly a Christian. People don't have to believe in your religion to be good, likewise, I'm sure plenty of evil people believe in Jesus.

There's a difference between "believing in" Jesus and having a personal relationship with Him. There's also a huge difference between actually believing in Jesus and being a nominal Christian. That said, you completely missed my point. I didn't say that it was impossible to "be good" unless you're a Christian. I said that you cannot trust man's ability to be Christ-like unless that person has a personal relationship with Christ. Man is inherently evil. It's a fact that has proven itself countless times throughout the millenia, a fact that, unfortunately, makes war necessary at times. My point was that it is incredibly naive to believe that humanity is inherently good.

Furthermore, this topic has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I'm surprised that you, as a moderator, would continue an off-topic subject like this. If you want to discuss this, please PM me or start another thread in the appropriate forum.

 

[Kelzie]

There's a difference between "believing in" Jesus and having a personal relationship with Him. There's also a huge difference between actually believing in Jesus and being a nominal Christian. That said, you completely missed my point. I didn't say that it was impossible to "be good" unless you're a Christian. I said that you cannot trust man's ability to be Christ-like unless that person has a personal relationship with Christ. Man is inherently evil. It's a fact that has proven itself countless times throughout the millenia, a fact that, unfortunately, makes war necessary at times. My point was that it is incredibly naive to believe that humanity is inherently good.

Furthermore, this topic has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. I'm surprised that you, as a moderator, would continue an off-topic subject like this. If you want to discuss this, please PM me or start another thread in the appropriate forum.

You posted something, I responded to it. If you felt that it was OT, you shouldn't have posted it as an argument.

If you read the rules, you would have noticed that it says nothing about going off topic. That is because our policy is to let a thread go in the direction that it will, and to not over-moderate this forum.

 

[battleax86]

You posted something, I responded to it. If you felt that it was OT, you shouldn't have posted it as an argument.

Tell that to mixedmedia. I didn't start on this subject.

If you read the rules, you would have noticed that it says nothing about going off topic. That is because our policy is to let a thread go in the direction that it will, and to not over-moderate this forum.

In that case, fine by me.

 

[mixedmedia]

Whether or not they are choosing it for themselves, if you support their holding of that idea, then you support the idea itself.

This quote narrows down what drives me most insane about conservatives. The inability to encompass difference. Acceptance of those who have different opinions than yours. To go about your own business and not care if your neighbor thinks the way you do.

Also, we're not just talking about an idea here, we're talking about an act (abortion). The idea that you can support the decision of someone to commit an act without supporting that act itself defies all reason (see the rape analogy).

Again, this same stubborn bias. So I suppose it should be mandatory for a vegan to oppose anyone's consumption of meat or use of leather products? While I understand the simple comparison of your rape analogy, I don't think it is consistent with most people's feelings about the two experiences. Abortions are performed willingly and it's "victims" are not sentient. Rape is a traumatic experience inflicted upon a conscious and terrified individual. I think if you asked your average father who doesn't have a strong religious aversion to abortion whether he would be more devastated by his daughter being raped or aborting an unwanted child, he would choose the former.

Am I supposed to feel that it's not OK for people who believe as I do to have the final word on the issue? Do you feel OK that people who feel the way you do about rape or murdering toddlers have the final word on the issue?

So you truly believe that women who have abortions should be placed within the social strata of rapists and people who murder toddlers? You really believe that? I find it hard to believe that you would have the nerve to walk out your front door everyday if that were true.

I wouldn't prefer to lose a loved one at all. That's why we make war on terrorists and those who support them.

This is a lame effort to dodge my question. When all else fails...bring in the terrorists!

Generally, God does. However, He gave us enough common sense to determine that intentionally killing innocents is wrong and killing in self-defense or the defense of others is acceptable.

Generally God does? Generally? And do you feel absolutely certain this paraphrasing of God's intentions does justice to the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill? Where is this fine print anyway? Can you fax me a copy? Mine must have gotten lost in the mail.

If all else fails, attack my screenname. :lol:

Your screenname BEGS to be attacked. And I have not failed. :mrgreen:

I don't see why these "established ideas" need any further consideration, but you're free to have at it.

Maybe you shouldn't think so much.

Not very complex. Just complex enough to where you can't make a blanket statement on killing, one way or the other.

You simply refuse to agree with anything I say, don't you. And since when were conservatives opposed to blanket statements? Sheesh, you guys whole bread and butter is blanket statements. I have strong opinions about the ending of life. What exactly is the problem with that?

So now I'm supposed to be unsure of what I'm saying? :neutral:

Ummm.....yes, 'tis human.

 

[mixedmedia]

It appears that you have fooled yourself into having faith about man's ability to be Christ-like. Man is inherently evil and cannot be trusted to behave "Christ-like" unless they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It also seems that you have deluded yourself into believing that war is never justified and no side is ever right. Tell me, is every American soldier who killed an enemy combatant in World War II a murderer? Is every American soldier who has ever killed an enemy combatant a murderer?

Mankind is inherently evil and I am delusional. Wow. What a charmer you are. No, mankind is not evil. Mankind incorporated CAN be evil. Very often it is. I think the real problem is that mankind is inherently ignorant. And it shows in their selection of "leaders."

I think this argument will come to naught and I'd rather have more constructive discussions. Believe it or not, I really don't enjoy arguing. My purpose in visiting this forum has always been to find common ground, although I will admit to a few instances of passionate manifesto-making.

You take care out there among the evil ones and I'm gonna keep on seeing the good in people, okay? Yes, sometimes the task is daunting, very daunting, but most often it is quite easy. The inherent goodness in people is manifesting every day. I guess it just depends on where your head is "at."

 

[shuamort]

Read it an eighth time. I'll highlight the important mono-syllabic word.

I support the idea of people being pro-life should they choose that for themselves. That doesn't mean I support people being pro-life. It simple means that I support their right to choose that for themselves. There's no complicity there.

Idea is the operative word. Now, re-read what you wrote and see how it doesn't apply.

The complicity (and hypocrisy) is in your own quote. You say that you do support people being pro-life if that's what they want to be. Then you say that you don't support people being pro-life. Whether or not they are choosing it for themselves, if you support their holding of that idea, then you support the idea itself. Otherwise, if you don't want people to be pro-life, then you won't support them holding that idea.

So you're against anything that has an opposing point of view of yours? You're against a two party system because one of the parties doesn't hold your ideologies? :roll:

 

[battleax86]

This quote narrows down what drives me most insane about conservatives. The inability to encompass difference. Acceptance of those who have different opinions than yours. To go about your own business and not care if your neighbor thinks the way you do.

I think that you're equating accepting an idea with accepting the person who holds that idea, when you should not be associating the two (which narrows down one thing that drives me crazy about liberals :lol: ). I have no problem accepting those who hold different opinions than I do. They are people and have the same rights that I do, regardless of their opinions. However, I will not pretend to support their holding of those opinions. This does not mean that I am opposed to them, personally, just their ideas.

Again, this same stubborn bias. So I suppose it should be mandatory for a vegan to oppose anyone's consumption of meat or use of leather products?

I think you will find that anyone who considers the killing of animals to be murder will, indeed, be opposed to these things.

While I understand the simple comparison of your rape analogy, I don't think it is consistent with most people's feelings about the two experiences.

Whether or not it is consistent with people's "feelings" is irrelevant. Could you honestly tell me that someone who is pro-choice on rape is not pro-rape?

Abortions are performed willingly and it's "victims" are not sentient. Rape is a traumatic experience inflicted upon a conscious and terrified individual.

To begin with, people are sentient from the late embryonic stage, which is irrelevant to whether or not killing someone is murder. Secondly, you are looking at abortion from the perpetrator's point of view to say that it's done willingly, while looking at rape from the victim's point of view to say that it's "inflicted" on an individual. I could just as easily turn that around and say that all rapes are performed willingly on a victim who may be drugged and/or unconscious, while abortion is a lethal and equally traumatic experience inflicted on the most helpless individuals known to humanity. The fact is that both rape and abortion are terrible violations of a person's rights and one cannot support the legality of either without supporting the practices themselves.

I think if you asked your average father who doesn't have a strong religious aversion to abortion whether he would be more devastated by his daughter being raped or aborting an unwanted child, he would choose the former.

The average father that I know, regardless of "religious aversions," would consider each to be serious crimes, but I guess that all depends on where one lives.

So you truly believe that women who have abortions should be placed within the social strata of rapists and people who murder toddlers?

In terms of the kind of people that they are, not all rapists and murderers are in the same social strata. However, their acts are definitely in the same "strata."

You really believe that?

[sarcasm]No, I'm BSing you because I like to argue and be disagreeable.[/sarcasm]

If I don't really believe something, why would I type it?

I find it hard to believe that you would have the nerve to walk out your front door everyday if that were true.

Uh, why, exactly?

This is a lame effort to dodge my question. When all else fails...bring in the terrorists!

No, I don't see how I'm dodging the question. In the middle of a paragraph equating conventional war with terrorism, you asked if I would prefer "to lose the unborn child of a loved one to a bomb or an abortion." I wouldn't want to lose the child of a loved one to either one, as both carry the same result. This is why our war against terrorism and the fight against abortion is necessary.

Generally God does? Generally?

Yes, generally. The Bible doesn't answer all social questions.

And do you feel absolutely certain this paraphrasing of God's intentions does justice to the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill?

The commandment actually says (in modern English) "thou shalt not murder." Furthermore, there are numerous passages from the same book (Exodus) and others throughout the Old Testament where God specifically orders certain people to be killed for their actions, as well as passages that list situations where a person will not be punished for killing (such as self-defense and the defense of others). There are even parts where God orders His people (the Israelites) to go to war and blesses them in it. So, to answer the question of whether it does justice to the Ten Commandments, I would say yes.

Where is this fine print anyway?

It's not exactly fine print, but you can find it all over the Old Testament.

Can you fax me a copy? Mine must have gotten lost in the mail.

I would be happy to mail you a Bible if you want.

Your screenname BEGS to be attacked. And I have not failed.

Yes, you have most certainly failed. And, no, my screenname does not "beg" to be attacked. Attacking one's screenname is usually a sign of immaturity that I would not associate with someone who can write as well as you can.

Maybe you shouldn't think so much.

Maybe you should think more. (Sorry, you set yourself up for that one.)

You simply refuse to agree with anything I say, don't you.

Depends what you say. :wink:

And since when were conservatives opposed to blanket statements? Sheesh, you guys whole bread and butter is blanket statements.

Yet another blanket statement about conservatives. I don't speak for every single conservative. I only speak for me and those who I know well enough and I don't make such blanket statements.

I have strong opinions about the ending of life. What exactly is the problem with that?

I disagree with your opinions. What exactly is the problem with that?

Ummm.....yes, 'tis human.

So it's un-human to be confident about what one says? In order to act human, I must be unsure of what I'm saying? Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Idea is the operative word. Now, re-read what you wrote and see how it doesn't apply.

No, it still applies. If you support the idea of something occurring, then you are supporting that occurrence. Tell me, is it possible to support the idea of people being pro-theft without being pro-theft yourself?

So you're against anything that has an opposing point of view of yours? You're against a two party system because one of the parties doesn't hold your ideologies?

I'm not against a two-party system because it's possible to have two parties that agree with me on different things (like the Republicans and the Libertarians). However, I am against any party that doesn't agree with my views. If the Democrats disappeared tomorrow, temporarily leaving the Republicans as the only major party, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

 

[battleax86]

Mankind is inherently evil and I am delusional. Wow. What a charmer you are.

I try. :lol:

No, mankind is not evil. Mankind incorporated CAN be evil. Very often it is. I think the real problem is that mankind is inherently ignorant. And it shows in their selection of "leaders."

If people are ignorant, then they will do what comes naturally to them. For example, you don't have to teach a child to lie when he's in trouble, to steal when he wants something that's not his, or to hit somebody when he's angry with them. On the contrary, you have to teach them not to do these things because they come very naturally to people and will occur unchecked if they are not taught differently.

I think this argument will come to naught and I'd rather have more constructive discussions. Believe it or not, I really don't enjoy arguing. My purpose in visiting this forum has always been to find common ground, although I will admit to a few instances of passionate manifesto-making.

I don't really enjoy arguing, either. I also enjoy finding common ground. However, certain clear-cut issues are just about impossible to compromise on.

You take care out there among the evil ones and I'm gonna keep on seeing the good in people, okay?

By all means. :lol:

I also enjoy seeing the good in people. However, I won't pretend that man does not have an evil nature, as it manifests itself all the time.

Yes, sometimes the task is daunting, very daunting, but most often it is quite easy. The inherent goodness in people is manifesting every day. I guess it just depends on where your head is "at."

Yes, I guess it does. I choose to keep mine out of the sand. How about you?

 

[steen]

Prolife fundies and false claims.

Whether or not it is consistent with people's "feelings" is irrelevant. Could you honestly tell me that someone who is pro-choice on rape is not pro-rape?

Well, technically that would be possible. Being supportive of a person's right to chose some action doesn't mean that you are promoting the action.

To begin with, people are sentient from the late embryonic stage,

An outright falsehood. I wonder what prolife lie-site you got that from? The Thalamocortical tract doesn't connect until the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, which is MANY MONTHS after the embryonic stage transitions into the fetal stage. And sentience simply isn't physically possible until then.

Please don't make such claims before actually checking them. Then we can avoid these many episodes where I need to correct your blatantly false claims

which is irrelevant to whether or not killing someone is murder.

Hmm, is it possible to "murder" something that isn't sentient? After all, "murder" is the illegal killing of a person. So there is a point to that.

Secondly, you are looking at abortion from the perpetrator's point of view

Ah, prolife revisionist linguistic hate speak. No surprise. Army-of-God uses such tricks all the time. Are you from Army-of-God?

to say that it's done willingly, while looking at rape from the victim's point of view to say that it's "inflicted" on an individual. I could just as easily turn that around and say that all rapes are performed willingly on a victim who may be drugged and/or unconscious, while abortion is a lethal and equally traumatic experience inflicted on the most helpless individuals known to humanity.

But that would be a lie, as the mebryo is not an individual to begin with.

The fact is that both rape and abortion are terrible violations of a person's rights and one cannot support the legality of either without supporting the practices themselves.

The embryo is not a person. You are outright lying, spewing deceptive sophistry. Is the PL position so weak and indefensible that it needs to be propped up with such outright lies?

(Yeah, well. That was a rhetorical question, in case you wondered.)

The average father that I know, regardless of "religious aversions," would consider each to be serious crimes, but I guess that all depends on where one lives.

Well, if all your friends are rabid prolifer Army-of-God fundies, then they likely would find the abortion to be worse than having their daughter re-traumatized every day from the rape-induced pregnancy that he won't let her get rid off. So let a few of the little girls commit suicide instead. As long as they don't have an abortion, what does a prolifer care?

In terms of the kind of people that they are, not all rapists and murderers are in the same social strata. However, their acts are definitely in the same "strata."

But what you so cowardly ran from was your indication that the woman who abort is no different than the rapists and murderers. Your cowards retreat here, can that be taken as you agreeing that you were wrong, that these women are NOT akin to rapists and murderers?

No, I don't see how I'm dodging the question. In the middle of a paragraph equating conventional war with terrorism, you asked if I would prefer "to lose the unborn child of a loved one to a bomb or an abortion." I wouldn't want to lose the child of a loved one to either one, as both carry the same result. This is why our war against terrorism and the fight against abortion is necessary.

Ah, so if a loved one seeks an abortion, then you will fight abortions to prevent her from having one. Talk about wanting to control women's bodies. SHEESH!

Yes, generally. The Bible doesn't answer all social questions.

Actually, it leaves a lot of social questions unanswered.

The commandment actually says (in modern English) "thou shalt not murder." Furthermore, there are numerous passages from the same book (Exodus) and others throughout the Old Testament where God specifically orders certain people to be killed for their actions, as well as passages that list situations where a person will not be punished for killing (such as self-defense and the defense of others).

And there are passages there, where the fetus is described as merely a thing and not a person, which contradicts your earlier claim. So are you one of those who picks God's word when it fits your politics and rejects it when it goes against your fundie misogynistic goal of oppressing women? Such blasphemous behavior is what we saw in the Pharisee. Are you a Pharisee?

There are even parts where God orders His people (the Israelites) to go to war and blesses them in it. So, to answer the question of whether it does justice to the Ten Commandments, I would say yes.

And God even instructs to cut open pregnant women. The prolifers kind of frown on that, right? So are you against God?

No, it still applies. If you support the idea of something occurring, then you are supporting that occurrence. Tell me, is it possible to support the idea of people being pro-theft without being pro-theft yourself?

So I can't be supporting the idea of heart bypass surgery without supporting people getting the surgery, without being pro-surgery?

I'm not against a two-party system because it's possible to have two parties that agree with me on different things (like the Republicans and the Libertarians).

The libertarians are officially pro-choice. Hmm....

However, I am against any party that doesn't agree with my views. If the Democrats disappeared tomorrow, temporarily leaving the Republicans as the only major party, I wouldn't have any problem with it.

Ah, yes. Then we can get rid of the pseudo-republican Democratic Party and get a real Social-Democrat party in its place. Or perhaps a real Socialist party?