posted
I was listening to the talking heads on the morning news shows on Sunday and became very frustrated. As our elected officials continue to position on the issue of frozen embryos and whether or not the constitute life, they do nothing as states perform executions.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there's actually a good bit of difference between an embryo and someone on death row. I'm not going to argue about things, but I thought it'd be a good idea to point that out Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no interest in arguing either. My point is simply that life is life. We value life to the point that we are willing to condemn those who take it, but the state should not compound the evil, with Hammurabi-like "justice."
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I doubt you completely believe this. Are you willing to kill a living plant in order to live?
Probably. Because you value some life over other.
As is true for people that are pro-choice but anti-death penalty, as well as the people who are pro-life but pro-death penalty.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Portabello: There is no "other way 'round" to A is different from B.
Certainly there is, to wit, "B is different from A". But seriously, what I meant was that I use this difference to support abortion and oppose the death penalty, while I believe Boris does the opposite.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When President Bush said, "We will not support the taking of a human life in order to save other lives." I would have given all my cash and a Reeses Dark Chocolate Candy for just one reporter to have responded, "Then why did we invade Iraq?"
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear this argument a lot, and I still can't believe that it's so difficult for people to understand how I can believe that committing murder, in certain cases, is a forfeiture of your own right to life and that abortion, the taking of an innocent life, is wrong.
I also find it baffling that while you and I have the same religious views, KoM, we're exact opposites on both of these issues. Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as I can recall, KoM's views are uniformly the opposite of what some people view as the "traditional" conservative/religions views.
edit: not that this indicates anything -- my personal views coincide to a great degree with the opposite.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My solution to the Death penalty is limb removal. Eventually, there wont be any limbs left to cut off. If you commit murder enought times that you don't have any limbs, then I can see death as a punishment. It only makes sense, that if you are willing to lose limbs for murder, theres something not right in your head.
Abortion on the other hand, I'm prety neutral on. I say it's personal preference. If you believe it's wrong, don't get an abortion. If you are really serious about it, don't have any friends who have had abortions. I don't see a need to bring legalization in at all.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We legalize the hell out of how someone departs this life, once we decide that they are "someone."
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you believe it's wrong, don't get an abortion. If you are really serious about it, don't have any friends who have had abortions.
How do you think that treating badly people who have had an abortion will do anything to appease those who are pro-life?
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I there are many folks who object to having the state fund abortions with tax dollars from those who are morally opposed to abortion.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hear this argument a lot, and I still can't believe that it's so difficult for people to understand how I can believe that committing murder, in certain cases, is a forfeiture of your own right to life and that abortion, the taking of an innocent life, is wrong.
I feel exactly the same way, Eddie. I do not believe that we should treat human life as absolutely sacred, no matter what the circumstances. I believe that since everyone lives in a society, and benefits from society, there are certain things you are and aren't allowed to do, and if you are especially flagrant in your violation, you have surrendered your fate to your neighbors, if they decide to take it.
Of course, I believe I am also instructed by God to forgive and not to kill unless in self-defense, but I'm working on internalizing that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: How do you think that treating badly people who have had an abortion will do anything to appease those who are pro-life?
I didn't say to treat them badly. I was saying that if you are that bothered by abortion, you don't have to associate with people who don't have a problem with it. Thinking back on it though, I'm not sure why I said that. It really wouldn't solve much, would it?
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think that refusing to be a friend to somebody because they made (what I consider to be) one bad choice would not be treating them well.
Not only would it do no good, it could actually do harm. When two sides of any issue manage to isolate themseves from interaction with the other side, it becomes too easy to view the other side as THEM, and not really people worthy of love and respect.
Heck, it happens too often even we aren't isolated. I have seen far too often on this site (which is far better than most) the baisic sentiment "You cannot be an intelligent, informed, and moral person if you [vote Bush, have an abortion, be for the death penalty, don't believe in God, believe in God, etc.]"
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heck, it happens too often even we aren't isolated. I have seen far too often on this site (which is far better than most) the baisic sentiment "You cannot be an intelligent, informed, and moral person if you [vote Bush, have an abortion, be for the death penalty, don't believe in God, believe in God, etc.]"
That is very true. I hadn't really thought about it that way. I guess I'm a little ignorant on the subject. No experiences to support my ideas with. On one hand, I would never have a woman get an abortion for my child. On the other, I don't have a problem with other people doing it. Neutral is the only word I can think of, but leaning towards the liberal side.
Posts: 1401 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do see a difference between a murderer and a fetus, but I also oppose both abortion and the death penalty. Personally, I prefer the idea of a life sentence to hard labor.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Thou shalt not kill" has always meant the same thing. Without exception, the phrase "thou shalt not kill" has always had the silent qualifier "unless you really, really dislike the person."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the commandment is not, "Thou shalt not kill."
Because some people see a difference between a murderer and a fetus, when they believe the fetus is a human life. The fetus is to some people one step away from the infants you find in the maternity ward , of equal value, equally worthy of protection as that same infant. The murderer is a person who made choices and chose to terminate the life of another human being against their will, usually with brutal violence.
There is an extraordinary, obvious difference between the two. You may feel differently, but if you claim you do not understand it, you're being deliberately obtuse.,
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, there have been some strict and true non-violence types. But they are a real rarity.
Even for the many that are not strictly non-violent, personal dislike of a person is not a valid reason for killing, despite what you are implying.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I also there are many folks who object to having the Federal Gummint fund unilaterally-declared wars with tax dollars from those who are morally opposed to war.
I don't think we can. This is something I have obsessed over for a while now, hence the frustration with the politicos that prompted the thread. It was one of the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II that made me pause because I had never thought about the inconsistency of of being morally opposed to abortion and not to the death penalty. If the commandment means anything (very strict interpretation) , then there is no justification for taking life. Even in the most extreme case one could argue that not even preserving your own life qualifies as an "exception." I suppose I sound like Michael Dukakis during the presidential debate, but I often wonder if I could overcome my innate desire to preserve my life and obey the commandment and enjoy eternal life.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just had a wonderful discussion last night with a deeply religious Christian. While he could only (obviously) express his own personal views on the subject, I wonder just what percentage of "Culture of Life" types would support his statements?
He was all for our invasion of Iraq, to (in essence) "teach those Muslims for attacking us on our own soil". I gently reminded him that Hussein had nothing to do with it, and that the US was (according to the British journal "The Lancet") responsible for over 100,000 extra Iraqi civilian deaths from our unilaterally declared war, and that the original premise of the invasion (Weapons of Mass Destruction) turned out to be a total fabrication. He dismissed all that, and basically said that all Muslims are responsible for the acts of a few, and that it's OK to kill them (in droves, apparently) because "they attacked us first," just like in the era of the Crusades.
He also said that Muslims, as a whole, refuse to accept any personal responsibility for their actions, and then proceedd to blame Clinton (or was it Carter?) for promoting the whole "Let's drive a huge, unecessary SUV/HUMMER" mentality.
So, according to him, it's OK for me, as a non-Christian, to blame all Christians for the lunatic actions of a few. And you should all gleefully accept that responsibility.
Where's that "bangs head against the wall" smiley when I need it...?
posted
I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to include an unsaid thought, "Those Within Our Society."
If you add those words, there is not problem. In Old Testament times, those within society were those of the people chosen by God--other Jews. Cannanites, Philistines, Persians and the rest of the multitudes whom the Isrealites fought were all out of the society so were all killable.
Jesus Christ taught us to expand what we thought of as "Society". He taught to include those outside our tribe, our city and our country. He taught us to include even our enemies.
Today we have people who believe that you loose your place in society by killing others. Once you do that you are outside the law, or outlawed. You can and should be killed.
Other people include them in society since they include all humans.
Today we have people that exclude Americans and Isreali's because they fear them and claim they are heathen, and we have people that exclude Arab's and Muslims because they fear them and claim they are heathen.
Today we have people who exclude the poor, or the blacks, or the latinos because its economically easier to do so.
Today we have people who include the newly fertilized egg into society.
Today we have people who include all mammals, most fish, and a few reptiles into that society as well.
It all depends on how you define your society.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I am opposed to the death penalty for the same reasons. I completely realize that most people who are in favor of the death penalty are conservative Christian types. And it probably seems crazy to them that there are people out there who are "into" the sacredness of all human life because of the same scriptures they use to justify the taking of it.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" did not neccessarily mean "a life for a life"; that phrase is so often misinterpreted (most famously in the Satanic Bible) as meaning that the punishment of any wrong deed should be equal to the deed. In fact, what it means is that the punishment should NEVER exceed the crime that was committed.
Sorry, but *revenge* is not justice.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Well, looking at it through that paradigm (which I don't accept, but that's a different post), then the reason for the death penalty is that we exclude murderers from our society.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
JW -- I fail to see what you find funny. Do you disagree about what I said you can find in the Bible?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: It would appear that the people of the Old Testament were commanded *to* kill not just Philistines and whatnot, but also those in their own society who broke a myriad of commandments. I guess you could say that according to their laws, once you broke a serious commandment, you were no longer considered part of the society.
But seriously, there was a *whole* lot of God-condoned killing going on for a people commanded not to kill. So I don't see how applying it to the death sentance makes any sense whatsoever.
The Jews of the Old Testament were killing people for far more than just murder.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the actions of people in the Bible should be used to justify the actions of our society. People killed people in the Bible? What does that have to do with us?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, it all depends on what you believe about the Bible and how it applies to us today. This is a highly personal, individual thing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Foust brought up Biblical justifications for killing by talking about the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I was responding to it.
quote:People killed people in the Bible? What does that have to do with us?
I didn't say it did. But it does have a lot to do with the Biblical commandment "Thou shalt not kill".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Capital punishment is not necessarily revenge.
Edit:
quote:And it probably seems crazy to them that there are people out there who are "into" the sacredness of all human life because of the same scriptures they use to justify the taking of it.
Also, the Bible does not necessarily teach that all life is sacred in the way you're implying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:there was a *whole* lot of God-condoned killing going on for a people commanded not to kill
Bev, if you were saying this about a religion other than your own, how would that make you feel? If the Jews, or the Muslims, or the Quakers were doing all the killing (well, maybe not the Quakers...), or some characters from an Ursula K. LeGuin novel...What would you have to say about the validity of their beliefs, or their justifications for their actions?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Kill" to include an unsaid thought, "Those Within Our Society." If you add those words, there is not problem.
And I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Covet They Neighbor's Wife" to include the unsaid thought, "Unless she's really, really hot." If you add those words, there is not a problem.
I have always seen "Thou Shalt Not Steal" to include the unsaid thought, "Unless you can get away with it." If you add those words, there is not a problem.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
