Abortion - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-13-2007, 02:45 PM   #181
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
But remember, my definition of murder is the "intentional killing of an innocent human being". In the scenario you are discussing, there is no intentional killing of innocent human beings. The soldiers are not intending to kill the civilians.
Well yes, your definition of murder (as well as of 'intentional,' 'innocent' and 'human being'). But presumably you wouldn't argue that if you drive drunk down a busy street weaving through red lights and wind up hitting and killing a pedestrian, you're therefore wholly innocent with regard to their death, even though you can honestly say you didn't intend to kill anyone. Again, I'm not trying to suggest a pregnant woman is analogous to a soldier or a drunk driver; I understand the different degrees of intentionality logic and the different circumstances logic. But at the very least, you're imposing your own preferred definition of the legal status of who or what is being killed on the equation, and that is what I was trying to get at. Who are you or I to say that the legal status "human being" is somehow altered by being in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e., combat situation) such that it's OK for a soldier to go ahead and drop bombs on an area knowing that a few such persons will probably die, yet it's not OK for you to drive drunk knowing that someone innocent will probably die? No one really, but by general consensus as expressed in international law and US law respectively, it's "resolved" and thus treated as a given that those situations should indeed be legally evaluated in that way.

You and I would probably agree that at least in most cases those evaluations are morally as well as legally sound, but a pacifist would likely disagree, and in my view they have as much moral right as we would to attempt to have that legal evaluation changed; I can't think of any unchangeable, universally-seen-as-authoritative source we could appeal to to make the case that our evaluation of "unintentionally" killing civilians by dropping bombs (Whoops! Sorry, we try to minimize that kind of thing, honest!) is more innately morally right than theirs. Similarly, someone who doesn't share your view that killing a [fetus, unborn child, whatever you want to call it] is the moral equivalent of murder, has the moral right to oppose the state's equating an aborted [fetus/unborn child] with a murder victim, and their [mother, incubator, whatever you want to call her] with a murderer for legal purposes. In a legal context, "human being" means something simultaneously much broader and much vaguer than the minimalist, empiricist way in which an embryologist might use that term, and it seems to me that you're dodging that reality by framing this as a "biological science issue" neatly bookended by your preferred legal definition of murder.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 02:49 PM   #182
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,647
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
I know this has come up many times. But why is it more important to spare the life of a murderer instead of executing him? Where as a developing fetus (one with a head, body, arms, and legs formed less important and we add it to the pile of slaughter?

Don't we play god in both situations. We spare the DP on one but exterminate the life of an innocent?
This comparison is as old as dirt and I never really understood why it even gets brought up.

You know where I stand on DP and I've made myself clear as to why I think legalizing abortion is a much safer and better means in the long run.
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-13-2007, 02:55 PM   #183
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,647
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
but exterminate the life of an innocent?
Oh you're wording in this post was quite brilliant by the way, using 'slaughter' and 'innocent' well done, taken directly from the pro-life handbook no doubt.

Here's a question for some of the more fundamental.

I know some in here believe we are born into sin, original sin, that's why we're baptized. So when exactly does this innocence wear off?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:00 PM   #184
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:50 AM
The wording did not come from a pro-life pamphlet.

BVS do you remember the murder trial they had here in CA recently for Scott Peterson?? Do you think he killed two people or one?
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:06 PM   #185
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,647
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24
The wording did not come from a pro-life pamphlet.
That was a joke.


Quote:
Originally posted by Justin24

BVS do you remember the murder trial they had here in CA recently for Scott Peterson?? Do you think he killed two people or one?
How many trials spell out your reality? I could probably list a whole threads worth that would go against your view.

The truth is these charges are made exactly for those reasons.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:10 PM   #186
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:50 AM
Answer yes or know if it was one person or two that were killed? Is it only considered a person, human life once it leaves the mothers womb?
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:13 PM   #187
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,647
Local Time: 12:50 PM
I can't remember how far along she was...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:18 PM   #188
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:50 AM
She was 8 months pregrnant.
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:27 PM   #189
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,647
Local Time: 12:50 PM
Well 8 months is developed enough to survive on it's own and wouldn't ever be aborted anyways.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-13-2007, 03:30 PM   #190
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Justin24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Mateo
Posts: 6,716
Local Time: 11:50 AM
But the question is when she was killed there was a debate on wether to charge him with double homocide or single. So this ties in with abortion. Is the baby developing inside a woman considered life(human) or only when the baby is born?
__________________
Justin24 is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 04:27 PM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Here's something I don't understand. If anyone can explain this to me, please do.

I understand why someone who does not think that a fetus is a human life would support abortion rights.

But there are people out there who do believe that a fetus is a human life and agree that it is murder, but they still think it should not be made illegal. Can anyone explain this to me?
I can only answer the last one,...I don`t have ( and want to have ) the morality superiority to make that kind of desicions for other people.

I have the right to be against abortions but i don`t have the right to forbid it ( especialy because i don`t want to take care of that kid )I only can agree with the new abortion law`s in the Netherlands that will give schools more money for sex education, give more money to information to women about other solutions than abortion, give more money to save houses for teenage mothers and give single parents welfare without the obligation to find a job in the first 5 years of the child`s yought.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:02 PM   #192
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

How can someone who believes it is murder think it's not the government's business? Why do they think that murder should be a personal choice?
It's a good question, but I already answered it from my perspective. Do I personally think abortion is murder? Yes, I do. Do I think the government should ban it? No, I don't, for reasons that aren't specific to abortion, like I've said several times already. I have serious problems with 1) the government regulating the sex lives of individuals and 2) doing so on religious grounds. Since those reasons aren't specific to abortion, it doesn't matter whether or not I personally think abortion is murder.

And how one defines murder is always a personal choice. This shouldn't surprise you. Think - war in Iraq, the death penalty, etc.

I've got another good question: How can religious conservatives argue in favor of secular legislation banning abortions, yet these "Christian" people have never gone out of their way to do ANYTHING for all of the unwanted and abandoned children they think they're trying to protect?

__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:09 PM   #193
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


I've got another good question: How can religious conservatives argue in favor of secular legislation banning abortions, yet these "Christian" people have never gone out of their way to do ANYTHING for all of the unwanted and abandoned children they think they're trying to protect?

Wh do you think they don't?

I answered your question several posts ago, but I wll copy and paste it here:

"You've never met me. I've worked with lots of kids over the years.

There are many many Christian organizations that do the very things you said you've never seen. Shall I list all the Christian organizations that feed the starving children of the world? Or how about the shelters and missions run by Christians that shelter and feed homeless children? Or how about the missionaries who dedicate their lives to helping children in need? Shall I go on? It would be a very long list, I assure you."
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:12 PM   #194
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Liesje


It's a good question, but I already answered it from my perspective. Do I personally think abortion is murder? Yes, I do.
So, since you think abortion is murder, you think that at least one type of murder should be legal - abortion; is that a correct assessment of what you are saying?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 02-13-2007, 05:18 PM   #195
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 01:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


There are many many Christian organizations that do the very things you said you've never seen. Shall I list all the Christian organizations that feed the starving children of the world? Or how about the shelters and missions run by Christians that shelter and feed homeless children? Or how about the missionaries who dedicate their lives to helping children in need? Shall I go on? It would be a very long list, I assure you."
Christian organizations are not the same as a Christian who is rabidly against abortion but never does anything concrete for children here. If you are not willing to personally adopt a child, or personally fund the raising of a child until the age of 18, then there is a certain level of hypocrisy.

We all know very well that there are not enough Christians adopting children and not enough Christian organizations (and really should we be promoting the institutional raising of a child?) taking care of abandoned kids by the sheer number of children who fall through the cracks in the system.

A child should not be reared in an orphanage, despite the good intentions of the Christians (or whoever else) running it. Why are there not enough homes if there are so many rabidly anti-choice people around?
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com