The Death Penalty - Page 3 - 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 04-28-2003, 06:24 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Please excuse me for jumping in.

Myself, along with most pro-choice people would not support someone having an abortion when they were eight months pregnant. Pro-choice people that do not have a problem with this are unreasonable and fall into the trap of ‘all or nothing’ thinking.


Taking RU486 the morning after having unprotected sex ,or if a condom breaks, is considered an abortion by some, if it disrupts a fertilized egg. Pro-life people who call this murder also fall into the trap of ‘all or nothing’ thinking I believe.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 06:32 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,272
Local Time: 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Please excuse me for jumping in.

Myself, along with most pro-choice people would not support someone having an abortion when they were eight months pregnant. Pro-choice people that do not have a problem with this are unreasonable and fall into the trap of ‘all or nothing’ thinking.


Taking RU486 the morning after having unprotected sex ,or if a condom breaks, is considered an abortion by some, if it disrupts a fertilized egg. Pro-life people who call this murder also fall into the trap of ‘all or nothing’ thinking I believe.
Exactly.

Angela
__________________

__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-28-2003, 08:00 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Please excuse me for jumping in.

Myself, along with most pro-choice people would not support someone having an abortion when they were eight months pregnant. Pro-choice people that do not have a problem with this are unreasonable and fall into the trap of ‘all or nothing’ thinking.


Taking RU486 the morning after having unprotected sex ,or if a condom breaks, is considered an abortion by some, if it disrupts a fertilized egg. Pro-life people who call this murder also fall into the trap of ‘all or nothing’ thinking I believe.


You summed it up perfectly. I have already discussed at length on this board why first trimester or early second trimester fetuses are not viable. This is an undeniable scientific fact. Now you can argue whether life has begun, but you cannot argue that this life can be supported and that is why many-prochoice people do not view early term abortions to be murder.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 08:30 PM   #34
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram




You summed it up perfectly. I have already discussed at length on this board why first trimester or early second trimester fetuses are not viable. This is an undeniable scientific fact. Now you can argue whether life has begun, but you cannot argue that this life can be supported and that is why many-prochoice people do not view early term abortions to be murder.
As far as pregnancy terms go, viable means "sufficiently developed to be able to live". Whether the fetus can live by itself or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether he/she is a living human being that should be protected by law, just as people who can live by themselves are. Think of all the people it would be legal to kill if we let "viability" be the deciding factor:

(1) A one month old baby cannot live without a human to take care of it
(2) Many physically and handicapped people cannot live without a human to take care of them
(3) Many elderly people can't live without a human to take care of them

I'm sorry to be so blunt, but I have to; using "viability" as a pro-choice argument is a cop out. If it's a human life, it's a human life.

You said "undeniable fact" about a fetus not being a "viable" life. Well, mull over these undeniable facts and tell me that a fetus is not a human life:

http://www.cobbpregnancy.org/pregnancy1.html
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 08:43 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


You say it's not possible. It sure is possible. I haven't had sex in 13 years. 13 years. .
I now understand your affection for the 80s.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 08:53 PM   #36
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:29 AM
I must insist that a distinction is made between corporal punishment and 'child abuse' - the two are completely different.

As an advocate of corporal punishment, I do believe that the parents have a right to choose how to bring up their child, however, I of course do not endorse child abuse.

I can understand your argument, nbcrusader, why should people have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not and yet they should not have the right to choose on how to raise their kids, and I do partially agree with you. I whole-heartedly believe in parents having the right to bring up the child, but I also believe that 'some' will abuse such a right. This is also very true in the case of abortion (then again, I am anti-abortion), as in I believe that not ALL cases are wrong, it is subjective at the best of times.

Abortion is problematic, but since you've raised the issue of corporal punishment, it raises something that I would like to address - the suffering of the child. One of the many things that raises problems for me when it comes to abortion, is the question of the child. I have often asked myself, what is worse for the child; not existing at all or being raised by parents who never wanted him in the first place - essentially, being raised by bad parents? It effectively boils down to the same thing, the same end-result as one would get from child abusers - a tormented child - and this is the prime concern for me, and I believe it should be the prime concern for everybody. Forgive me, but I have always believed that when it comes to these matters (abortion, corporal punishment... or anything else that requires an innocent child to be included in the picture) it is the child, the LIFE that we as adults chose to implicate, that takes precedence. It is not a question of having the right to 'choose' anything, it is the right to do what is best for the child, not necessarily what is best for the mother, the father or whomever.

I am not saying that I agree with abortion - I do not - but I am willing to concede that both areas contain plenty of shades of grey, and are not as black and white as I would like to think. Yes some adults abuse their right to raise their children as they wish, but then again, there are some adults who do abuse their rights to have sex with whom they wish, and hence accidents happen. If modern society proves anything, is that too many mistakes do happen.

The continuous spread of STDs (AIDS still being the worst culprit), the seemingly increasing number of unwanted pregnancies in some countries, the increasing number of divorces etc. are all symptoms of a society that is clearly NOT responsible for its own 'right' to choose whatever. By all means, grant more freedoms to people, I am not a liberal for nothing, but you cannot have more freedoms without responsibility.

Being more central to the topic, freedom without responsibility is exactly what I see when I look at the Death penalty. Here we have something that I have never been able to reconcile with; how can we as a State ever think of ourselves as both responsible or indeed posses the right to take another's life? The truth is, we do not have either - we haven't earned it.

I don't see the Death Penalty as something completely negative, God knows I was very much for it until a few years ago, but I do think that it negates the whole idea of trying to create a more just society. It has been proven that it is not effective as a deterrent, and one must ask why.

We cannot have a society that is built upon fear, it must be built upon virtues. Society is also measured by its ability to be merciful, I believe. Or atleast, it should be.

Ant.

My position? Anti - Abortion.
Anti - Death Penalty.
Pro - Corporal Punishment.

(Subject to exceptions - always. )
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 09:01 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


I now understand your affection for the 80s.
I ahve to admit, that is FUNNY!

However, I will also add that it is by choice that I am not having sex.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 09:05 PM   #38
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
You say it's not possible. It sure is possible. I haven't had sex in 13 years. 13 years. But in this society, have we come to accept that people are animals, unable to control themselves ? I guess so. That's what we see on TV after all. That's what we hear on the radio. No one acts maturely anymore, no one takes responsibility.
First off, what I hate about this argument is that it assumes that everyone has the same hormonal responses. Quite honestly, there are some people who have absolutely no sex drive (the asexuals who probably created the priest celibacy rule in the Catholic Church) and those who have more or less. I think I'm tired of thinking that somehow we are so above the animal kingdom that we cannot embrace our animal instincts without feeling guilty. Of course, what was done 2000 years ago is you got married on the brink of puberty, since your life expectancy wasn't that high. Mary was probably 13 years old when she bore Jesus.

I find it hypocritical, almost, that, on one hand, we have moralists deriding the arrival of posthumanism, but, yet, constantly telling us to be different than what we really are. Religion is the inventor of posthumanism. Essentially, all religion has tried to do is suck every last bit of pleasure out of humanity, rankling us with guilt and burdens. "We're never good enough." So why didn't God make us like the robots we want to turn ourselves into if that was His "will" all along?

I agree that this certainly has gone too far in some respects. I guess I'm tired of the extremism on both ends.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 09:25 PM   #39
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:29 AM
And yet, Melon, don't you think its a little bit 'neat' to lump it all under 'different hormonal responses'?

While I recognise that its too extreme to say that 'Society is immoral, everyone's a whore', I do believe it is equally extreme to say that 'oh its alright, its not that they have less self-control, its because they have different hormonal responses'. Neither do the reality of the situation justice, and that is that 'some' level of control and responsibility is needed at all times, at the very least.

I don't think its a question of how we think ourselves above the animal kingdom, the fact is we are above it in so many distinct ways, I do not think it is so far-fetched to say that we are more advanced than the common rabbit who likes to copulate incesantly (I don't actually know if this is scientific fact now, but its a recognisable example), and therefore have higher issues to consider. No, I don't seek to deny our 'animalistic' natures, and I don't believe that it is on too many people's agendas either, but I do seek to point out that we are so much more, and we not only capable of achieving so much more - we have.

While I will concede that Religion has a lot to answer for, I do not paint its history with a such an intensely dark shade as you seem to. Yes, Religion has been the architect of societies in history, and any architect of history will tell you that you can't have a society without some form of control. Essentially, religion has been (and for many people, still is) about control.

Whether its posthumanism or postmoderism, I do believe that we as a society are too 'indulgent' in many respects. The sexual framework of modern society is by far one of them. So, while I do not like this idea of condemning everyone for not being celibate, I do say that its not as simple as different hormonal responses. So what? We have different hormonal responses to everything in life, the element of self-control is still always required of us, and, at the risk of sounding like a total prude, rightly so.

Incidentally, I think the matter of celibacy is something to be commended, though it is not considered fashionable to do so in this day and age. I don't really care, say what you will about the role of celibacy within the Catholic church, I still believe it to be a noble one ideologically.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 09:46 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
Neither do the reality of the situation justice, and that is that 'some' level of control and responsibility is needed at all times, at the very least.
This isn't in conflict with what I wrote, and I agree.

Quote:
I don't think its a question of how we think ourselves above the animal kingdom, the fact is we are above it in so many distinct ways, I do not think it is so far-fetched to say that we are more advanced than the common rabbit who likes to copulate incesantly (I don't actually know if this is scientific fact now, but its a recognisable example), and therefore have higher issues to consider. No, I don't seek to deny our 'animalistic' natures, and I don't believe that it is on too many people's agendas either, but I do seek to point out that we are so much more, and we not only capable of achieving so much more - we have.
What bothers me is the judgmental nature of those who say "we are in control," as this is an argument constantly levelled at homosexuals. I'd like to see what the response would be to people if religion decreed that all sex and love was evil--much in the fashion of the Shakers. I would be curious as to how much "restraint" a lot of these people would have then.

Quote:
While I will concede that Religion has a lot to answer for, I do not paint its history with a such an intensely dark shade as you seem to. Yes, Religion has been the architect of societies in history, and any architect of history will tell you that you can't have a society without some form of control. Essentially, religion has been (and for many people, still is) about control.
Religion, after all, was an extension of imperial Europe. How else could they have enslaved the serfs and their descendents for 1000 years with no mass revolt?

Quote:
Whether its posthumanism or postmoderism, I do believe that we as a society are too 'indulgent' in many respects. The sexual framework of modern society is by far one of them. So, while I do not like this idea of condemning everyone for not being celibate, I do say that its not as simple as different hormonal responses. So what? We have different hormonal responses to everything in life, the element of self-control is still always required of us, and, at the risk of sounding like a total prude, rightly so.

Incidentally, I think the matter of celibacy is something to be commended, though it is not considered fashionable to do so in this day and age. I don't really care, say what you will about the role of celibacy within the Catholic church, I still believe it to be a noble one ideologically.
I would counter that this is a very romanticized view of the past. We are no more "indulgent" than our ancestors, but their skeletons just remained in the closet. It is worth mentioning that, in the 1930s, most of the "prominent" families in my hometown had "wife-swapping" parties. I would venture to say that my hometown wasn't the only swinging town.

As for Catholic celibacy, it would be admirable, if only those who maintained it were actually celibate. My favorite has to be the Renaissance pope who had a wife and about eight children (I think it was Alexander VI). And I don't understand why it is "noble," except for the fact that celibacy is traditionally an idealized virtue thanks to medieval Christianity. What does it matter if a saint is a virgin or not? Well, but we certainly do find out.

Anyway, this isn't a judgment of 80sU2isBest...far from it. I just dislike the implication of "supremacy" and "judgment" such pronouncements make. However, in the context of 80sU2isBest as an individual, I would agree that it is admirable.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 10:07 PM   #41
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 01:29 AM
No, we are no more indulgent than our ancestors. If any, we are probably a lot LESS indulgent. However, we have different problems than our ancestors. We have the ability and ease to create abortions, an AIDS epidemic and other issues. We can't go around having orgies willy nilly because we have different concerns than the Romans did, for instance.

Regarding Catholic celibacy, I would tend to disagree. There are many priests who do indeed practice celibacy and believe in it. The nobility of it is the idea of sacrifice, that you are sacrificing something in your life as an ordinary man to be with God and do God's work, and I think that is something to be commended, rather than sneered at (not that you are, I'm just saying).

However, I do not wish to hijack the thread. Sorry - I just think the Catholic church does tend to take many beatings here, and I seem to want to defend it for some bizarre reason.

Ant.
__________________
Razors pain you; Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you; And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren't lawful; Nooses give;
Gas smells awful; You might as well live.

Dorothy Parker, 'Resumé'
Anthony is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 10:21 PM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony
No, we are no more indulgent than our ancestors. If any, we are probably a lot LESS indulgent. However, we have different problems than our ancestors. We have the ability and ease to create abortions, an AIDS epidemic and other issues. We can't go around having orgies willy nilly because we have different concerns than the Romans did, for instance.

Regarding Catholic celibacy, I would tend to disagree. There are many priests who do indeed practice celibacy and believe in it. The nobility of it is the idea of sacrifice, that you are sacrificing something in your life as an ordinary man to be with God and do God's work, and I think that is something to be commended, rather than sneered at (not that you are, I'm just saying).

However, I do not wish to hijack the thread. Sorry - I just think the Catholic church does tend to take many beatings here, and I seem to want to defend it for some bizarre reason.

Ant.
I agree really with everything you've said. I just get kind of mad when it has to do with Catholic sexual tradition and gender roles, and I've probably studied too much of the morality that most Catholics don't know about (how many would know that it is still the Church's belief that a woman's best lot in life is as a married mother?) I just get mad at how out-of-touch it is, ridiculing people who don't live up to its incredibly narrow standards and its contempt for diversity. What a boring world this would be if everyone lived up to JP II's standards to the letter.

And, no, I don't want to hijack this thread either. For what it's worth, I admire Catholicism's consistent anti-abortion / anti-death penalty / anti-war stances. At least it isn't hypocritical like so many other Christian denominations, IMO.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-28-2003, 11:38 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

Religion is the inventor of posthumanism. Essentially, all religion has tried to do is suck every last bit of pleasure out of humanity, rankling us with guilt and burdens. "We're never good enough." So why didn't God make us like the robots we want to turn ourselves into if that was His "will" all along?
Melon
Melon,
God created sex. If engaged in as he designed, and only as he designed, it is a beautiful thing. Otherwise it is a cheap substitute for a wonderful creation of God.

"We're never good enough" is exactly the point of the Gospel. God is perfect - no flaw or sin in him. The Word tells us that darkness and light cannot abide together. Therefore, because man is sinful, he was doomed to spend this life and the afterlife out of fellowship of God. But Christ bridged that gap between man and God. Christ's perfect sacrifice provided atoning for man's sin. It paid the price, so that anyone who would accept that free gift would be clean in God's eyes.

So, God doesn't "burden us with guilt". We do that ourselves, by committing sin. God is the one who does away with the guilt, by teh sacrifice of Christ.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 01:34 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
I have already discussed at length on this board why first trimester or early second trimester fetuses are not viable. This is an undeniable scientific fact. Now you can argue whether life has begun, but you cannot argue that this life can be supported and that is why many-prochoice people do not view early term abortions to be murder.
A couple of points.

1. As devils advocate only - why is viability the issue? A second trimester baby is fully dependent on the mother. A newborn infant is fully dependent on the mother (or father or surrogate for the parents).

2. If you feel first & second term abortions are not murder, then feel comfortable calling it abortion, as in pro-abortion. My original post points out that "choice" is not used in a principled fashion.

3. I would place RU486 in a separate category as it is used whether or not conception has occurred. Abortion only occurs once the life is discovered. I agree that protection of a potentially fertilized egg is extreme and beyond any degree of measure.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-29-2003, 01:50 AM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 08:29 PM
I don't know, nb, but I was wondering the same thing. To me, "Viability" makes no difference in the whole issue, for the exact reason you stated.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
 

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 08:29 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