| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Paul |
#41 | |||
|
Posts: 314 06/02/09 10:55:59 |
I will say again that if terming someone a Nazi gets people to put that person outside of the law and due process, then the problem is not with the pro-life movement but with this atttitude that we can make up our own morality. You are denying that words have no consequences |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#42 | |||
|
Posts: 3945 06/02/09 12:16:45 ezOP |
No, I am not denying that words cause effects. However, in this matter the cause is not rightly calling someone a murderer, but the ignorance as to true
authority. It stems from those who would be their own authority.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Paul |
#43 | |||
|
Posts: 315 06/02/09 13:28:15 |
No, I am not denying that words cause effects. However, in this matter the cause is not rightly calling someone a murderer, In it's most basic sense ending the life of a human being by abortion or bullets is the same inasmuch as in both cases the victim is dead but that is where it ends. Equating a 15 year old girl who is terrified of the consequences of accidental pregnancy with a mafia hit man is worse than absurd. Do we react equally to both circumstances? I don't believe you would say we do, or should but you do so by indiscriminant use of the term murderer. Equating the situation of a woman who is at the end of her economic and physcological rope ending an unplanned pregnancy with Dr. Mengle doesn't help us to help this woman or stop future Dr. Mengles. Sure you can call both the girl and the mafia hitman, the woman and Dr. Mengle murderers but such inflamatory words do nothing other than misdirect solutions and influence weak minds to gun down people in church thinking they are doing God's work |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#44 | |||
|
Posts: 3946 06/02/09 14:14:03 ezOP |
Pointing out that abortion is murder is a necessity for all those who trvialize it into a convenience and would barter exceptions. Would you say that it is not
okay to kill someone unless you were once the victim of a rape and the person you kill is a reminder of that event? Of course not. WOuld you say that a child
should be held accountable for the sins of his father? Of course not. Yet, this is exactly the exception mentality with regards to abortion due to rape.
A young police officer involved in apprehending his first violent criminal is also young and afraid. Is it any less wrong for him to pull the trigger killing someone because of that fear? No we demand that such a young person ascertain that the person he fires at actually is armed. Purposely killing a defenseless child is murder. There is no other way to see it. TO sugar coat it because the mother is young and afraid is merely a springboard for what we have today: abortion cheap and on demand -- legalized murder. THe guy who shot Dr. Tiller is a murderer. That does not make Dr. Tiller less of a murderer. THe perp simply murdered against the law while Tiller murdered within the law. If one does not believe in murder then there are no exceptions.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#45 | |||
|
Posts: 4773 06/02/09 16:12:19 Camper |
Hi Paul,
> As a precondition the reimposition of this law must be preceeded by the agreement that abortion on demand is wrong by a significant majority of citizens. Well, in Canada, in 2005, a poll asked the question, "when should human life be protected?" 60% of respondents favoured some restriction on abortion. Only 33% favoured abortion on demand. But if we go for the whole enchilada as I am sure Isabelle would demand, it will never happen. We need to peck away at it until abortion is eliminated. It might take a hundred years, but that is the reality. Of course, that is not to say that the Isabelles of this world should not rant about it, that helps too. > The other troubling implication from your statement, and feel free to clarify, is there is no difference between killing abortionists and unborn children. There is not. The Church teaches that all life is sacred. If Tiller is unrepentent he will go to hell; if his killer is unrepentent he will join him. The problem with putting relative value on human life eventually yours may be worthless. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#46 | |||
|
Posts: 4016 06/03/09 02:17:44 Camper |
Hi Bob,
Well, in Canada, in 2005, a poll asked the question, "when should human life be protected?" 60% of respondents favoured some restriction on abortion. Only 33% favoured abortion on demand.Does that mean 93% of people accepted some form of abortion? Seems high.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#47 | |||
|
Posts: 4017 06/03/09 02:22:58 Camper |
Hi Marti,
Pointing out that abortion is murder is a necessity for all those who trvialize it into a convenience and would barter exceptions.I think pointing out that abortion is murder is a tactic rather than a "necessity". I do not believe that the majority of people who support abortion in one form or another trivialise human life. In fact, as I have said in other posts, I think pro-lifers and pro-choicers have a common respect for human life. The major thing that distinguishes the two groups is, fundamentally, their different definitions of when that human life begins.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#48 | |||
|
Posts: 4775 06/03/09 08:33:04 Camper |
Hi Gary,
> Does that mean 93% of people accepted some form of abortion? Seems high. The poll broke down like this: protected at conception-30%, at 3 months-19%, at 6 months-11%, after birth-33%. 7% didn't know or had no opinion. The point is that at the moment in Canada there is no law regarding abortion. Looking at the numbers one would think that parliament would feel the need to do something, but even the Conservative Party, the alleged pro-life party, will not touch it with a barge pole. While the Church opposes abortion under any circumstances a Catholic politician could support a bill allowing abortion up to 24 weeks because the Church would view it as a step in the right direction. The Church is pragmatic enough to realize that no government is going to ban abortion outright. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#49 | |||
|
Posts: 3950 06/03/09 08:55:39 ezOP |
Argy,
I would love to believe that there is respect for life from the pro-aborts, but evidence is lacking. While those who philosiphize about the case for abortion may include the idea of "humanness" and when it occurs, the average Jill who finds herself pregnant avails herself of an acceptable and legal form of birth control with little thought as to the life of the child. In fact it is why so many are devastated later when they realize the magnitude of wht they have done. Some never realize which is why they have multiple abortions. Dr. TIller was one of the few abortion doctors who performed very late term abortions. Yet, there cannot have been thought of that "humanness" factor as many of these abortions took place well past the fetal age where children have been born and have survived. THat would suggest that abortions beyond that age are beyond the development of this "humanness". Obama came under fire for legislation which had been proposed which would require giving medical care to babies who happened to survive abortion. Doesn't the fact that babies survive abortion suggest that abortions are being performed beyond the fetal age where they have developed this "humanness"? None of this shows a common respect for human life. Respect for human life is the care one has for life as it is in those first seconds when it seems the slightest thing could harm it. That respect is based on the concept that it is human and it is life and it is a unique person even if it is so small that it cannot readily be seen.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#50 | |||
|
Posts: 4020 06/04/09 00:31:45 Camper |
HI Marti,
I would love to believe that there is respect for life from the pro-aborts, but evidence is lacking. While those who philosiphize about the case for abortion may include the idea of "humanness" and when it occurs, the average Jill who finds herself pregnant avails herself of an acceptable and legal form of birth control with little thought as to the life of the child.But that's the problem. You condemn pro-abortionists as killers of children and presume that your definition of "child" is accepted universally. The point I have been making ad nauseam is that it is this lack of agreement on the definition where the conflict lies. Also, the evidence of the respect that pro-choicers have for human life is everywhere. I know of none of them who think it's ok to randomly kill other humans. As Burke's statistics show, the general population includes a huge proportion of pro-choicers. These are the same people who make laws against murder, rape, etc.. Dr. TIller was one of the few abortion doctors who performed very late term abortions.I understand that, and I personally am very uncomfortable with late term abortion. However, I am not willing to condemn others because they have a different view to me. Of course, I am free to voice my conserns as everyone is. I think our State got it about right when it limited abortion on demand to mid-term. After that medical advice needs to be sought and gained (each case is different). Respect for human life is the care one has for life as it is in those first seconds when it seems the slightest thing could harm it. That respect is based on the concept that it is human and it is life and it is a unique person even if it is so small that it cannot readily be seen.I respect your opinion. However, it is obviously not universal and I would hope you concede that it is the pregnant women involved who should be empowered to make the decision as they see fit.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#51 | |||
|
Posts: 3952 06/04/09 08:12:17 ezOP |
No I do not concede that.
THis whole issue is about following the money. There is no equality. Let's get out of the discussion of humanness and life and all of that and look to see how it affects the parents. John and Sue get married and have a baby. Because of the legality of the marriage, the court has the recourse to establish child support should the union dissolve to take care of the child. This is good because the state will likely not have to support the child. John and Sue hop in bed without marriage and conceive a child. The law is very clear at this point that Sue has the right to her own reproductive health. THis means she can choose to either abort or carry the child. The propaganda is that it is her body and she has the right to do with it what she likes. So let's see this. Sue decides she wants to be a mom and John wants to be a dad. No problem. THe legal end is met for establishing child support. Sue decides she does not want to become a mom and John does not want to become a dad. No problem. THere will be no child to support. Sue decides she does not want to become a mom, but John does want to be a dad. He cannot compel her to parenthood as it is her body. This is an expedient because where one parent does not want a child that child has a greater chance of winding up supported by the state. No child, no expense. So the state likes this and denies John his reproductive rights. Sue decides she wants to be a mom, but John does not want to be a dad. She can compel him to parenthood. He must now support this child with the work of his body for the next 18 years or have his body tossed in jail. He has no right to do what he wants with his body as Sue has compelled him to support a child. This is also in the best interests of the state because John is responsible for the money and not the state. Abortion is the state's best choice because if they can get a girl to abort then there are fewer children of single parents and those are the children most likely to fall upon the states welfare system. The concept of one's own body and reproductive rights is a lot of hogwash or those same rights would be granted to John. THere is no respect for life or even thought of life among pro-aborts. Our new president stated the issue very succinctly during his campaign. He said that without abortion america's daughters will not have the same opportunities as America's sons. Thus, to ensure opportunities for America's daughters we must work to keep abortion legal. There is no common respect for life between pro-life people and pro-abort people.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Burke |
#52 | |||
|
Posts: 4777 06/04/09 08:17:27 Camper |
Hi Gary,
> You condemn pro-abortionists as killers of children and presume that your definition of "child" is accepted universally. In your world of absolute relativism Marti's condemnation of pro-abortionists is not only reasonable, but necessary. Because we believe that a fetus is a child at conception it is, the opinion of pro-abortionists notwithstanding. If I were the only person in the world that believed a fetus was a child from conception, in absolute relative terms, within the one square foot that I am standing on, the fetus as a child at conception is an absolute truth. Peace, |
|||
|
|
||||
 NMOCM |
#53 | |||
|
Posts: 152 06/04/09 09:21:46 Neophyte |
But that's the problem. You condemn pro-abortionists as killers of children and presume that your definition of "child" is accepted universally. Argy, Truth is not a matter of opinion. Someone can try to redefine the word child, but it doesn't make abortion any less wrong. I am not willing to condemn others because they have a different view to me What do you mean by "condemn" ? Refusing to call what's wrong wrong is cowardice. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
wondrousgnat.christiansvsnon... |
#54 | |||
|
Posts: 57 06/04/09 09:24:36 |
I have participated in about 50 pro-life pickets. A couple had a thousand people in them. I never observed an act of violence, either physical or verbal,
committed by our side. We have, however, been attacked by pro-aborts.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
NMOCM |
#55 | |||
|
Posts: 153 06/04/09 09:30:46 Neophyte |
wondrousgnat wrote: Yup. I've had similar experiences. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
wondrousgnat.christiansvsnon... |
#56 | |||
|
Posts: 58 06/04/09 16:40:14 |
We are regularly sworn at or given the finger. We warn new people to stay away from the curbs because drivers sometimes leave the road aiming at us.
On one occasion a driver made a sudden unsignaled turn running over a pedestrian on the sidewalk. A policeman nearby pulled the pedestrian from under the car and arrested him. What was interesting is that the policeman did not know the pedestrian was not one ofus but a neighbor walking on the sidewalk to the store. Since we had experienced enough police harrassment we always hadvideo cameas handy. But the judge would not llow the video to be shown. |
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#57 | |||
|
Posts: 4021 06/04/09 18:59:13 Camper |
Hi Marti,
THis whole issue is about following the money. There is no equality. Let's get out of the discussion of humanness and life and all of that and look to see how it affects the parents.You might thing the issue of the state funding child support is the most important issue, but I do not. And I don't think it is at all to the forefront of the minds of the individuals involved when they make their decisions. If money is your main criteria perhaps you should revise your stance on contraception. THere is no respect for life or even thought of life among pro-aborts.Marti, you still don't get the point I am making. Pro-choice advocates respect and embrace the rights of humans just as much as pro-lifers. Can you name one Pro-choice advocate who says it's ok to kill an eighteen year old, or a two year old, or a ninety year old? Of course you can't. The two groups have "common respect" for life over virtually the entire lifespan. I keep saying that the basic difference between the groups is not one of reverence for human life, but the definition of when it starts. As an aside, what amazes me is the number of pro-choice advocates who endorse the death penalty. Do you believe there are any circumstances where it is acceptable to take human life?
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
Argy Lacedom |
#58 | |||
|
Posts: 4022 06/04/09 19:06:27 Camper |
Hi Bob,
In your world of absolute relativism Marti's condemnation of pro-abortionists is not only reasonable, but necessary. Because we believe that a fetus is a child at conception it is, the opinion of pro-abortionists notwithstanding. If I were the only person in the world that believed a fetus was a child from conception, in absolute relative terms, within the one square foot that I am standing on, the fetus as a child at conception is an absolute truth.You've hit the nail on the button. Marti is as entitled to her view on when humanness starts as anyone. She, and everyone else, is entitled to try to influence other people to adopt her viewpoint. However, the exact time when humanness commences is currently ambiguous and heavily disputed. In those circumstances it is only right that the individuals concerned have the right to choose their course of action for themselves. That's what pro-choice means.
What the question boils down to is this...
Is a thing good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good?
If the former, then the believer must accept that god could make murdering children good. If the latter, then the believer must accept that we have no
need of god for moral instruction.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#59 | |||
|
Posts: 3953 06/04/09 21:46:37 ezOP |
THe tie goes to the runner.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
MartiW |
#60 | |||
|
Posts: 3954 06/05/09 08:28:23 ezOP |
Okay, I have a few moments and can get back to my thought. In the game of baseball, the tie goes to the runner meaning that if the umpire cannot say for sure
that the ball or the runner got to the base first, he must rule in favor of the runner. THe idea behind this rule is that the defense has the potential toput
the runner out at another base, but once you have removed the runner from base there is nothing more that can occur and you may have removed the potential from
the offense unfairly. THe same goes in this situation. If you and I were walking down the road and came upon a man lying in the road and we looked at the guy
and you said, "He is dead." and I said "No, I think he is alive." Should we call the authorities and tell them we have a dead man or call
and tell them it is an emergency to send an ambulance? We ought to choose to err on the side of life. If the guy is dead the ambulance ride will not change
that. If he is alive, it may keep him alive. Assuming neither of us is a doctor, even were we to call and report a dead man, they will typically run an
emergency code and send the ambulance to err on the side of life. If we do not err on the side of life and thus cause the death of the person, we can be
charged with manslaughter. Yet where we look at a fetus, if we allow for a difference of opinion we go with the convenience of the mother. Consistency would
demand that we err on the side of life.
When you say that nobody advocates that it is okay to kill an 18 year old, a two year old, or a ninety year old, you are in error. If the person requires a lot of care, then it can indeed be advocated to starve that person to death (ref: Terri Schiavo). In answer to your question about if it is ever appropriate to take a human life, the answer is only when there is no other choice. If a man comes at me with a gun, I have the right to defend myself to include killing him if necessary. The state has the right to capital punishment. This does not allow for the indiscriminate use. It should only be allowed when it is necessary to protect society and never for revenge. Examples would be: Saddam Hussein. There would have been no way to imprison him that would not have kept society safe. It would have spawned extreme acts of terrorism from his followers. In this case based on the crimes he committed, the absolute certainty that he committed the crimes, and the safety of society, capital punishment was likely appropriate. In California Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife on Christmas Eve. There was quite a search where he sat there and played the heartstrings of the entire country. It got quite emotional and the public was outraged at anyone who would have abducted this lovely pregnant woman. When it was determined that he killed her and they arrested him, they also charged him with killing his unborn son because under California law they could then give him the death penalty. (The death penalty in California requires at least two murders.) I agree the man committed two murders. However, in a state where they are so pro-abort and late term abortion is supported, it was a farce. If Lacy Peterson had decided to abort her son, she would have been exercising her reproductive rights. For the father of the child to do so is murder. The only reason it was charged as such was so society could exact revenge. He is not a man who is running around just killing people. He is not a man with a following where he will incite others to kill people. He can be imprisoned and the safety of society from him is sure. Capital punishment is inappropriate.
DEUS meus, ex toto corde amo Te super omnia, quia es infinite bonus et infinite amabilis; et ob amorem Tui proximum meum
diligo sicut meipsum, eique, si quid in me offendit, ignosco.
|
|||
|
|
||||
