Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Legal Death, Legal Life, Personhood and Abortion
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 256 of 316 (186519)
02-18-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by riVeRraT
02-18-2005 9:27 AM


That is not what this is about. I haven't told anybody to do anything. I have mearly stated that if you have sex, you can get pregnant.
As Asgara has already pointed out, you are telling people that your opinion counts more and they must do what you think, when you enforce your opinion with law.
The converse cannot be said when one argues there should be a lack of laws on a subject. They are not forcing you to do anything. It is only silliness to say "I'm forced to say it is legal." No one is forcing you to say anything. Why do you have to say anything but how you feel and try to encourage others who share your faith to listen to your opinion? The only thing we are preventing you from doing is saying it is illegal and calling in police to arrest those that do not have the same religious beliefs as you do.
I did ealier. I even supplied links.
Missed 'em. But now that I looked they are not prolife organizations, as in political/legal groups against abortion. The first (which you are a VP) looks like a well meant group to help children across the world (though it looks like it is for prosyletization purposes which I find exploitative). The second, is a prolife organization, but specifically as health centers. Neither stated their position on sex-education and contraceptives, nor socialized health care for women and children (unless they go through christian charity).
This whole thing is about life. Life is a gift and a blessing whether you believe in God or not.
I don't think this is true at all. I think quality of life is very important. Life certainly is a driving force, and it is compelling to help life continue, but not in any and all situations. Indeed that is why we have concepts of euthanasia, and abortion. Unless of course we want to use a circular argument that those people are wrong and you are right so we can forget those issues.
This is also apparent in how many life saving organizations there are for people, animals, mammals, and plants in the world.
We also have slaughterhouses and farms, and even vets will put down animals whose quality of life is deemed no longer worthwhile.
Since it is the act of intercourse that starts life, it then becomes our responsibility to control it. I do not think it is right to play games with life.
But this is a religious position. Unless you are going to force your religion on other people, this is blatant enforcement of one religion over another.
To my way of thinking there is no such thing as "playing games" with life, besides torturing already living entities. The process of living involves the accidental and intentional ending of many other lives just to keep yours and those you love alive.
I think it is healthier and important to try an minimize suffering and loss of life, but the creation and ending of life is not inherently "wrong", especially when that life is basically cellular and not independent of a host...
In fact, if one was to choose the best time to terminate life it would be within the gestational phase when it is not "complete" as a being. In that case one will have sufficiently reduced the possibility of suffering.
But somehow life seems to find a way through regardless. so when we fail at trying to stop life from ever forming, then what do we do? Rip it out, and kill it. I do not find this acceptable.
Okay let me back off a minute. Even though I did try and rip your position up a bit, the latter half of your post was really well composed and perhaps even eloquent in describing your feelings on the subject.
That is great. That is wonderful. I am actually glad you have an interesting and apparently thought out position on this subject. I am glad about this even though it is opposite of my own position. I like diversity of opinion.
That said, I am trying to show you that while my position may not be for you, it is equally a thought out and valid position, just not one you can accept given your feelings.
Now here comes the problem... you want yours to trump mine because of a popularity contest using the government. I want the government to respect both of our beliefs and so treat us both as valid thinking adults, and not as an uber-parent.
RAZD created an interesting essay which took into account many different view points (popular view points) regarding life and personhood, and created an argument for how to capture extreme positions like mine and yours within law so that it won't insult either one of us. It is flexible enough not to be overbearing, yet strict enough not to let people "play with life" intentionally or negligently.
Yes it will allow for things you may not desire, and restrict things in a way I do not think is necessary, but the result is that needs of both sides are met in a form of compromise based on consistent rules for assessing personhood.
I think we owe it to life(or whatever started it) to respect it. Since we are not exactly sure what or who started it. If it was God, then we are definatly doing the wrong thing, and we are a people of the earth, a human race, and our collective decsions on life affect all of us.
Again I want to point out that this is your religious position and not mine. How do we know that God did not give us intelligence in order to properly control our own reproduction? Your statement that people should just abstain, I would note, is not carried over to other aspects of life. Or do you say, people should just be going without food, because it will kill life?
In the end none of us can be 100% certain what has brought us into being and what the rules are. That is based on experience and faith. There are many different faiths. I am arguing to have them remain diverse with laws set in place to protect their diversity, rather than trying to enforce one over the other.
If everyone started thinking of the human race as one, then this world could start to be a better place.
I find it sort of funny that I am more angered by your attempting to speak for Lennon than for God. Maybe that says something about me. In any case, I agree with the above statement and like Lennon, and yet come to an opposite conclusion.
Perhaps it is based on the fact that I want to see the human race as one living race with many many different beliefs and practices. I do not want to see it as one race with a single cultural structure. The first represents life to me (diversity), the other represents oppression and illness.
I think it is by respecting different cultures and not forcing others under using laws that the world will become a better place.
This message has been edited by holmes, 02-18-2005 11:15 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by riVeRraT, posted 02-18-2005 9:27 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 9:53 AM Silent H has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 257 of 316 (186658)
02-18-2005 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by riVeRraT
02-18-2005 9:31 AM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
Presumably you are asking in relation to the legal definition of death.
If they are declared brain dead, presumably this is by the doctors, and presumably this means all of the brain (including the brain stem), then by the legal definition they are dead.
And when that happens they are unplugged from whatever life support machines they had been plugged into.
There is cell material that is still living, some organs and the like, so it is possible to remove these for transplant to other patients that need them, but the {human} element is dead.
While it is physically possible to keep the cell material and organs alive and functioning for a considerable amount of time, there is no need ... because the human is dead.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by riVeRraT, posted 02-18-2005 9:31 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 9:58 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 258 of 316 (186661)
02-18-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Trump won
02-17-2005 9:14 PM


Re: a question
or people generalize because they want to cover elements that pertain to more than just the individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Trump won, posted 02-17-2005 9:14 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Trump won, posted 02-19-2005 1:23 AM RAZD has not replied

Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 259 of 316 (186676)
02-19-2005 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by RAZD
02-18-2005 10:36 PM


Re: a question
Or to desensitize the truth

the christ was the buddha since the day he was born

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2005 10:36 PM RAZD has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 260 of 316 (186716)
02-19-2005 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Asgara
02-18-2005 9:44 AM


Re: Missed Point
MY opinion still leaves you the option of following your beliefs on the matter
No it doesn't.
"How did you feel afterwards?" The way your phrased your question made it seem like I had intimated that I felt nothing.
No it didn't, maybe it was the way you took it, not my question.
You still haven't answered BTW.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Asgara, posted 02-18-2005 9:44 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Asgara, posted 02-19-2005 10:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 261 of 316 (186728)
02-19-2005 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by CK
02-17-2005 8:03 AM


Re: Missed Point
Isn't is surprising that thousands of good catholic girls from Ireland and Spain flood here annually for abortions.
They must be so relieved to find a country that isn't ruled by religious dictators and offers everyone the freedom of choice.
Brian.
This message has been edited by Brian, 02-19-2005 09:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by CK, posted 02-17-2005 8:03 AM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by CK, posted 02-19-2005 9:28 AM Brian has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 262 of 316 (186729)
02-19-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Brian
02-19-2005 9:21 AM


Re: Missed Point
Yep - one of my friends is from Ireland - she was on the first boat over.
I think we tend to forgot here (at our peril) that the fundies still have some reach in mainland europe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Brian, posted 02-19-2005 9:21 AM Brian has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 263 of 316 (186732)
02-19-2005 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Silent H
02-18-2005 11:14 AM


Law means nothing I guess.
As Asgara has already pointed out, you are telling people that your opinion counts more and they must do what you think, when you enforce your opinion with law.
In some states, if not all, you can get away with murder. All you have to do is prove you were killing the person in self-defense.
Jesus obviously taught us different. One could go on to say then it goes against a belief to kill someone.
This law, and others like it come from peoples opinion of whats wrong or right.
Just because your opinion thinks that abortion is ok, does not make it ok. Since abortion is legal in this country people like have won that vote, and we are beating a dead horse. I have to live with that, and all I can do is pray about it, and teach people to hopefully not have abortions, and help those that don't.
So it's game over.
The first (which you are a VP) looks like a well meant group to help children across the world (though it looks like it is for prosyletization purposes which I find exploitative).
It is a two fold purpose. We are non-denominational, and our desire is to also have humanitarium people working with us as well.
It depends on the grant we recieve what our purpose will be. There are faith based grants, and non faith grants. The later, we cannot go and preach or mission. We don't have a problem with that, but only wish to help the children.
This doesn't mean that if we set up an orphanage, that we couldn't one day make a mission to go there. Or set up a village church, and micro economy.
If you find that exploitive, then it sounds like you are so against people who believe in God spreading the word, that it kind of makes you mad, and would hinder you from working along side people such as myself for the benifit of others. (let me know if I am wrong).
"prosyletization" is a nice word, one I had to go look up, but you spelled it wrong. proselytization.
I am not critical of this, becaue I am the forum's worst speller.
Since it is the act of intercourse that starts life, it then becomes our responsibility to control it. I do not think it is right to play games with life.
But this is a religious position. Unless you are going to force your religion on other people, this is blatant enforcement of one religion over another.
Well now it might be, but it wasn't for many years, when I did not believe in God.
In fact, if one was to choose the best time to terminate life it would be within the gestational phase when it is not "complete" as a being. In that case one will have sufficiently reduced the possibility of suffering.
Well I admit that a part of me agree's with that, It still does not solve the actual problem of people getting pregnant when they don't want to. again I feel as though we are playing games with life, no matter how small or insignificant it is.
I wonder if people in this org are pro-abortion or not.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
Now here comes the problem... you want yours to trump mine because of a popularity contest using the government. I want the government to respect both of our beliefs and so treat us both as valid thinking adults, and not as an uber-parent
I do like conversing with you, at least you make sense when you talk.
I do feel that your opinion does trump mine, because I look at us as the human race, and any decsion we make is a collective one. While we are individuals, we are also one, so it affects us. Most laws we have affect people in one way or another, that may or may not seem fair to them. We just have to live with it. But to say that I cannot vote towards my belief's because I am forcing them on you is unfair. You can't even say that if my belief's were based on God, that I cannot have them, or vote for a law sustained said belief's. Since no-one has proven that God does not exist.
Your actually expecting me to live in a country that doesn't believe in God, or follow God's rules.
Our country is one nation under God whether you believe in it or not.
Here is our declaration:
quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
:endowed by their Creator:
To tell me that my belief's cannot be God driven, or driven by anything is hypocritical, since your belief's are driven by something as well. Killing human life at any stage is against my belief's no matter how insignificant you might think it is. I am even against war, and that is my personal Christian stance.
How do we know that God did not give us intelligence in order to properly control our own reproduction?
We can look at the bible, or ask him yourself, he will answer you, that is a promise.
Perhaps it is based on the fact that I want to see the human race as one living race with many many different beliefs and practices. I do not want to see it as one race with a single cultural structure. The first represents life to me (diversity), the other represents oppression and illness.
Me too, to an extent. First off, my belief in God, and the bible, clearly warns me that not everyone is going to believe in what I believe in. But also tells me to help my brethren.
My belief in God does not drive my opinion on abortion, for it was my opinion based on life experiences before I started to follow God's ways. Even as I went through the abortion, I was wondering if this was the right thing to do. But it was legal, and I was young, so it must be ok then. The fact that it was legal had some kind of determining factor on whether I thought it was ok or not. I hope you can see that.
Diversity is wonderful. It is only the Love of Jesus that I wish to people. If they don't, then that's fine too, everyone has their way.
My friend went to another country(Africa) to help the recently converted Christians in how they worship. Whne he got there, he found the Pastor's screaming to the people "Praise the Lord, Hallelujah, Amen?". Plus also found them to be using american instruments, and style of music for worship. He was deeply saddened by this, as would I have been.
So he started to teach them to worship God in thier own way, and in a way that compliments their culture, not ours. To also use the music they have, and the instruments, as it was beatiful, and should not be lost. He even brought some of that back with him, so we could share it with others.
Christianity should not interfere with cultures, is my point I guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Silent H, posted 02-18-2005 11:14 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 5:21 AM riVeRraT has replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 264 of 316 (186733)
02-19-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
02-18-2005 10:19 PM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
There is cell material that is still living, some organs and the like, so it is possible to remove these for transplant to other patients that need them, but the {human} element is dead.
The legal death act is not for the transplant of organs.
It is only to define when a person is dead due to sustained injuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 02-18-2005 10:19 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by RAZD, posted 02-19-2005 12:47 PM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 269 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 10:52 AM riVeRraT has replied

Asgara
Member (Idle past 2302 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 265 of 316 (186744)
02-19-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by riVeRraT
02-19-2005 8:54 AM


My feelings
Explain please. Does my opinion force you or anyone you know to have an abortion? I didn't think so. So my opinion still leaves you the option of NOT having an abortion per your beliefs.
As for your second comment, I've had this discussion repeatedly with my teenage children. When someone tells you how a remark of yours "seemed" to them the proper response is NOT "you're wrong." I understand that you may not have meant your remark to seem that way but it did.
Now on to your curiousity as to my feelings afterward. Yes, I was depressed. Yes, for a period of time I wondered if I'd done the right thing. Yes, periodically I wonder what any child that may have come from that pregnancy would have turned out like. Yes, if the same circumstances presented themselves again I would do it again. No question about it.
During the two pregnancies that did result in children I also wondered if I was doing the right thing. After both births I was depressed, especially so after my second. Both pregnancies were miserable and the one that I ended up aborting was even more so.
Periodically I wonder about a miscarriage I had and what would have happened if that had been a viable baby. Periodically I wonder about a little girl I had taken under my wing many years ago. How did she turn out?
I have more to say, but I'll let you respond to this first.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"
select * from USERS where CLUE > 0
http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 8:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 6:33 PM Asgara has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 266 of 316 (186768)
02-19-2005 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by riVeRraT
02-19-2005 9:58 AM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
Now connect the dots ...
Would you want organs removed before the person was dead?
Would you want organs removed once the organ cells were dead?
As I said before this definition enables organ transplants but does not regulate them. The legal death act specifically says that it does not regulate transplants. There are other statutes that cover that eh?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 9:58 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 267 of 316 (186841)
02-19-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Asgara
02-19-2005 10:58 AM


Re: My feelings
I understand completely.
Bless you Asgara.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Asgara, posted 02-19-2005 10:58 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Asgara, posted 02-21-2005 8:26 PM riVeRraT has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 268 of 316 (186894)
02-20-2005 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by riVeRraT
02-19-2005 9:53 AM


Re: Law means nothing I guess.
Just because your opinion thinks that abortion is ok, does not make it ok.
I am a subjectivist. That means I believe that as much as I might think something is right you can think it is wrong, and both would be correct.
Laws are (or were) a means of keeping the peace and not necessarily enforcing social norms. As we base laws on concepts of right and wrong, we are inherently repressing diversity and real humans who happen to think different than us.
Abortion is different than murder, rape, theft etc in that is includes more than just moral components. It is not just "is it okay to kill someone?" This also includes patently religious concepts that come down to faith alone. The possibility of considering a gestational being a "someone" that can be "killed" is based entirely on metaphysical assumption neither side is ever going to prove.
Thus we are down to a debate between "gestational beings are what they are" or "gestational beings are what they might possibly become some time in the future because they have special property (life or soul) that is more than their physical being."
To craft laws on the latter proposition, not only represses actual living women in order to "take a chance" for the gestational being, but enforces that metaphysical position on others. Crafting laws on the former keeps the door open for both sides to practice their beliefs as they see fit, they just can't force others to practice their own singular belief.
If you find that exploitive, then it sounds like you are so against people who believe in God spreading the word, that it kind of makes you mad, and would hinder you from working along side people such as myself for the benifit of others. (let me know if I am wrong).
I don't find it exploitative, it is exploitative. To go to people in desperate poverty and then preach to them while delivering help is not to seek actual converts, it is to brainwash unwitting masses. Don't you realize that is a form of brainwashing?
If you really had faith, and a strength in your faith, and you really wanted to help people, wouldn't you simply help people and know that when they are strong they will choose to go with what is right (to you)?
This is one of the very reasons I have a very hard time with Xianity. Its basis is that people will not choose it unless they are preached to. Their is such an abundant lack of faith in the message travelling all on its own. A God that needs that kind of snake-oil salesmanship or predation can't be much of one. It suggests he doesn't even have faith in himself.
"prosyletization" is a nice word, one I had to go look up, but you spelled it wrong. proselytization.
Thanks, it wasn't just a typo. It's amazing no one has caught that (or mentioned it) all the other times I used it.
Well now it might be, but it wasn't for many years, when I did not believe in God.
You do not have to believe in God in order to hold a religious belief. Perhaps I should call it a metaphysical one, but the end result is that it is a faith, something you feel and believe without any positive proof.
That there are "rules" about how to treat life, and that you can even consider risk taking behavior as "playing with life" are moral concepts derived from your specific metaphysical assumptions.
I can honestly say that I have absolutely no concepts such as these. To me life is a force unto itself, which if anything plays with us and does not use a rule book. The best we can do is protect our individual lives with what few advantages we have. Lives in gestational and growth stages are not fully realized entities and do not take preference over fully realized entities, unless for some reason it is necessary to preserve life continuing at all. Given the overabundance of human life, this is hardly the case. Right now more humans are more likely to threaten life than less humans.
It still does not solve the actual problem of people getting pregnant when they don't want to. again I feel as though we are playing games with life, no matter how small or insignificant it is.
I agree that everyone should be concerned with reducing unwanted pregnancies. Of course it is because I care for the health of the woman involved. Indeed she is playing with her own life. However, as I said, I feel there is sufficient technology to reduce risk so that it is accidental at best. I don't think people should be locked into lead boxes to prevent all possible risk. Is that living?
I wonder if people in this org are pro-abortion or not.
Most likely not, and they don't necessarily have to be hypocrites as long as they don't view gestational entities (even of animals) as actual "moral" entities. But I can use this to provide an example of how laws that allow freedom do not oppress.
Right now you have held the position that a lack of laws which allow abortion force you to say it is legal and thus oppress you. At the same time you live under a lack of laws which allows you to own pets as well as eat meat and call for exterminators when you have a pest problem.
Are people like Peta and their more extreme affilliates oppressed by having to say that those things are all "legal"? There are religions such as jainism, hinduism, and buddhism which have very prolife beliefs well beyond your own. Should we craft laws according to the strictest morals on this subject (even if they are the most popular), or is it better to allow everyone to practice their own beliefs?
Once you get a real cockroach problem you let me know.
But to say that I cannot vote towards my belief's because I am forcing them on you is unfair. You can't even say that if my belief's were based on God, that I cannot have them, or vote for a law sustained said belief's. Since no-one has proven that God does not exist.
We cannot prove any other gods do not exist, shall we craft rules based on them? What I can prove is that we have a first amendment. You cannot establish your kingdom on me by fiat.
Our country is one nation under God whether you believe in it or not.
Here is our declaration:
You mean it is not, whether you believe it is because you have absolutely no knowledge of the founding of our nation, nor its laws.
Let us get this straight:
1) You quoted the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution (which is our founding body of laws).
2) The founders were Deists and did not have the same concept of Creator as you do, so even if we were to accept this I have more ability to say it is based on something other than your religious beliefs than you can say it is based on something other than my own. I am closer to deism than you are.
3) The concept "under God" as well as the entire pledge of allegiance would likely have been repugnant to the founders of this nation. They certainly avoided such things and there was no pledge until the late 1800's when a socialist thought we should have one and started championing it. The original pledge was without "under god" and included a salute not unlike the Nazi one. First the salute was changed and then under god was added to make us seem different than "godless communists".
4) If you actually look at the Constitution as well as the writings of our founders you will discover that they were against merging religion and politics. One early president (and Constitution signatory) explicitly rejected the idea of "faith based programs" being funded by the government. There is also an early treaty (1787) in which the entire government put in writing that the US is not founded on Xian principles.
I wish you would show half as much interest in our actual history as a nation as you do in trying to pretend that you are more patriotic because of your religion.
To tell me that my belief's cannot be God driven, or driven by anything is hypocritical, since your belief's are driven by something as well.
I didn't say your beliefs can't be, indeed I said they can be and that is wonderful. What I did say is that our laws should be created to respect the diversity of religious belief. Once a singular belief becomes law, the rest are oppressed.
With a lack of laws (which is currently the case) no one is oppressed. You can certainly say it is wrong as much as you want, you can choose not to have abortions, and work to convince others not to have abortions. That is 100% okay by me.
We can look at the bible, or ask him yourself, he will answer you, that is a promise.
Let me put it to you this way, if I have been answered then I have been told that your version is not the correct version. I have read the Bible and I have sought answers. All the answers I get have nothing to do with 90% of the Bible and 99% of what Xians espouse as their faith.
If you have been answered than that is great for you. Now I suggest studying philosophy and logic and history in order to put into perspective how your religion can best fit within the world. Is the answer pluralism and freedom, or unification under force of law?
Even as I went through the abortion, I was wondering if this was the right thing to do. But it was legal, and I was young, so it must be ok then. The fact that it was legal had some kind of determining factor on whether I thought it was ok or not. I hope you can see that.
That is interesting and certainly points to the error you made. Clearly you did have some moral religious/metaphysical beliefs, though they may not have been fully realized. It was definitely a mistake to view legal=moral. I think that is one of the problems with society today. We are now crystalizing that concept by making laws=morality.
We ought to be teaching kids from a very early age that laws are not morality. In a free society laws are made so that many diverse moralities can function without oppression. Thus one must learn to follow one's own moral laws, without threat of legal sanction.
So he started to teach them to worship God in thier own way, and in a way that compliments their culture, not ours. To also use the music they have, and the instruments, as it was beatiful, and should not be lost. He even brought some of that back with him, so we could share it with others... Christianity should not interfere with cultures, is my point I guess.
What happened to the Gods they had before Xianity? What inspired all the cultural artifacts which you say we should now be respecting? If you don't respect the entirety of their culture, who cares what remains of their music and instruments.
It is not until you view the entirety of cultures, and not just their superficial elements, as real and whole and important that you actually respect the people within them as mature human beings and do not interfere.
Frankly proselytizing and destruction of whole cultures by Xians is more repugnant to me then abortion could ever be. It is the actual killing of entire human peoples and their world concepts. It makes the world a less rich place.
Indeed, and I am not joking about this, take a step back. Isn't Xian missionizing simply abortion of cultures because you don't like what they look like? Just like abortion, once they are gone, there is no bringing them back.
If you saw Africans as people with cool instruments and music, but lacking Jesus, then you didn't treat them as people. If you went in under the cover of giving aid, in order to subvert their beliefs, then you have played with their lives. There goes your prolife stance.
Sorry to end on a mean note, but I really find proselytizing and the mockery of other cultures offensive.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 9:53 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2005 9:03 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 269 of 316 (186933)
02-20-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by riVeRraT
02-19-2005 9:58 AM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
I just read of an interesting case on cnn. Here is a link to the article.
It appears there were conjoined twins which were attached at the head. The second head was very well formed, yet had no body. In these cases medicine considers it a "parasitic twin".
Separation results in death for the parasite, yet they do it anyway as they do not consider it a valid "independent" life. In this case...
The head that was removed from Manar had been capable of smiling and blinking but not independent life, doctors said.
This is far more capable than the gestational beings we are discussing, and had been born and apparently could react... yet it was not "independent" and so able to be terminated as a parasite.
What do you make of such cases and how does it affect your theories regarding what life is as well as what defines "person"?
Would you force the girl to carry the second head for the rest of her life?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by riVeRraT, posted 02-19-2005 9:58 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by RAZD, posted 02-20-2005 1:41 PM Silent H has not replied
 Message 272 by riVeRraT, posted 02-21-2005 9:16 AM Silent H has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 270 of 316 (186979)
02-20-2005 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Silent H
02-20-2005 10:52 AM


Re: A person put on life support is not dead and a dead person is not put on life sup
With no heart or lungs of it's own the second head would not qualify as living. Interesting case.
{added by edit}
this site has a better picture
Egyptian doctors remove baby's second head
Notice also that Terri Schiavo (the brain dead Florida woman) could also blink and smile, but has no upper brain function.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 02-20-2005 13:48 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Silent H, posted 02-20-2005 10:52 AM Silent H has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024