|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 23, 2020 8:52:20 GMT -8
........Second, no that's not the definition of "murder", and obviously the "murder" I was talking about was abortion. Third, yes that would be a rational response but not the only one...what wouldn't be a rational response is to claim something is "murder" and then do nothing whatever about it. Sorry you don't understand the logic behind my statements, but it's there nonetheless. Lastly, you claim that "murder" is defined as the "killing of an innocent" but that's just not the case. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another. Abortion cannot be murder because abortion isn't against the law. Try again. The Pro-life community believes that life begins at conception. If one accepts that, then abortion is murder because it is the taking of innocent life. Obviously they are not claiming that abortion is murder on the basis of current US statutes. They believe that abortion is murder on the basis of natural law and the historical interpretation of murder as taking an innocent life. Under your narrow definition of murder, the gassing of Jews and Gypsies at Dachau was not murder because it was not contrary to the Third Reich’s existing law. But I assume we all agree that it was in fact murder The Pro-life community is doing something about abortion. If they were not we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Protests, blocking access, legal action, sidewalk vigils are all appropriate behavior according to their beliefs. It would be morally counterintuitive for them to protest abortion as the taking of innocent life and then risk burning individuals alive. I would assume that you oppose Iranian stoning of homosexuals as is done under Sharia law. It’s legal under Shari allow but it’s also reasonable to conclude that it’s murder, ie, the killing of an innocent. The fact that you have not burned down the local Iranian Embassy doesn’t indicate that you are not "sincere" in opposition to it. So it’s not that I didn’t understand the logic behind your statement, it’s just that the logic was not terribly compelling…………………………..Luca 1. I'm sure the pro-life community has a very colorful definition for many words but I thought we were speaking about the law. Abortion may be "murder" to many people but it isn't murder in our courts. I don't think you could say the same about the stoning of people for whatever reason, or the gassing of the Jews and Gypsies in Dachau. 2. Protests and the like may be appealing to the pro-lifers but if you really think there are "murders" being committed daily in these clinics and all you can do is wave around a sign and march, I don't think much of your passion for your cause. BTW, I think a person might be able to commit the arson of a clinic without hurting anyone. 3. Yes I do oppose the stoning of gay people in Iran...but that's the thing...it's taking place in Iran so no, burning down their embassy here would have little effect and is therefore not desirable. Also you make a false assumption by assuming I'm against the stoning of gay people because it's "murdering an innocent". That would be incorrect. They aren't innocent under Iranian law, on the contrary they've committed a capital offense. Now I don't think you wanted me to go into any detail about what I think of Iranian law( it's Draconian) but I'm against the stoning of gay people because I'm against the death penalty as a matter of principle, not because it's being arbitrarily applied or applied to gay people. 4. Well, when you try to compare hundreds of thousands of abortions to a handful of stonings, neither is yours. |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Nov 23, 2020 9:16:33 GMT -8
Not only indoor but now outdoor dining banned in L.A. County. It sure as hell isn't about eliminating a virus. Either that, or the whole notion of a virus, and things going "viral" escapes our leaders. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,376
|
Post by SK80 on Nov 23, 2020 9:47:31 GMT -8
You even have this lefty sports guy whom is employed by a lefty entity calling out LEFTY-ISM!!
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Nov 23, 2020 10:39:36 GMT -8
"Never let a crisis go to waste..."
Joe Biden didn't need to campaign. The Democrats had the election "fixed" already.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Nov 23, 2020 10:59:27 GMT -8
"Never let a crisis go to waste..."
Joe Biden didn't need to campaign. The Democrats had the election "fixed" already. I’ve been saying this (along with some of you) for several months. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Nov 23, 2020 11:05:55 GMT -8
"Never let a crisis go to waste..."
Joe Biden didn't need to campaign. The Democrats had the election "fixed" already. I’ve been saying this (along with some of you) for several months. You get credit for being the one to consistently predict that the Democrats would steal the election through ballot fraud. Even I underestimated the audacity of their plan. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 23, 2020 11:39:15 GMT -8
So I guess we've come down to this: Those who like Trump and support his policies believe he lost the election because it was stolen through fraud. And those who support his policies but are turned off by his personality and behavior believe he lost the election because he's a childish asshole. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, but even with election fraud he should have defeated a senile cadaver who refused to campaign by 10 million votes.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Nov 23, 2020 14:04:17 GMT -8
..... but if you really think there are "murders" being committed daily in these clinics and all you can do is wave around a sign and march, I don't think much of your passion for your cause. BTW, I think a person might be able to commit the arson of a clinic without hurting anyone. 3. Yes I do oppose the stoning of gay people in Iran...on the contrary they've committed a capital offense. but I'm against the stoning of gay people because I'm against the death penalty as a matter of principle, not because it's being arbitrarily applied or applied to gay people. So, seriously, you believe that...... Millions of Jews and Gypsies were not murdered in concentration camps. And Pro-life adherents are not sincere in their beliefs, the evidence being that they haven't bombed abortion clinics. And you do not oppose the “legal” killing of people because they are homosexual. And yet you are sincere in your opposition to the stoning of homosexuals (even though you have not bombed an Iranian Embassy), but a pro life adherent is not…….. because she has not bombed an abortion clinic, since after all " a person might be able to commit the arson of a clinic without hurting anyone.") These are not well thought out conclusions. If the above makes sense to you, then I think we have departed the land of logic and evidently landed on terra infirma. ………………..Luca |
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Nov 23, 2020 15:48:31 GMT -8
The Pro-life community believes that life begins at conception. If one accepts that, then abortion is murder because it is the taking of innocent life. Obviously they are not claiming that abortion is murder on the basis of current US statutes. They believe that abortion is murder on the basis of natural law and the historical interpretation of murder as taking an innocent life. Under your narrow definition of murder, the gassing of Jews and Gypsies at Dachau was not murder because it was not contrary to the Third Reich’s existing law. But I assume we all agree that it was in fact murder The Pro-life community is doing something about abortion. If they were not we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Protests, blocking access, legal action, sidewalk vigils are all appropriate behavior according to their beliefs. It would be morally counterintuitive for them to protest abortion as the taking of innocent life and then risk burning individuals alive. I would assume that you oppose Iranian stoning of homosexuals as is done under Sharia law. It’s legal under Shari allow but it’s also reasonable to conclude that it’s murder, ie, the killing of an innocent. The fact that you have not burned down the local Iranian Embassy doesn’t indicate that you are not "sincere" in opposition to it. So it’s not that I didn’t understand the logic behind your statement, it’s just that the logic was not terribly compelling…………………………..Luca Excellent! I have never heard it stated so perfectly. Another candidate for "Post of the Year." |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Nov 23, 2020 15:48:43 GMT -8
While compelling, I'm not sure the debate even requires the invocation of Nazi death camps and Iranian stonings.
To anyone who claims to believe in "science", the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is "alive" seems obvious. It reproduces its cells, it grows, it begins to differentiate cells to perform different functions, it metabolizes nutrients, it respires and it disposes of waste products, all of which are the very definitions of LIFE. To anyone who claims to believe in "science", the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is also "human" seems just as obvious. Genetically, it is not a dog, a sponge, a piece of brocolli or any other form of life. It is genetically not only 100% HUMAN, but it reflects 50% of its genetic heritage from each parent. So if it is so clearly a "human" "life", it is logically disingenuous to insist it is not a "human being".
If legality is the only crutch for allowing abortion, it is a weak one. There are hundreds of things that are legal and immoral, just as there are hundreds of things that are moral and illegal. What I can't comprehend is the reasoning of those who champion keeping alive serial killers and sadistic child rapists, while also championing the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year.
I respect women and their right to do what they want with their bodies. But that right should have been exercised when they decided to spread their legs without protection, and the price of that bad decision should not be paid by their unborn infants. We are told all the time that elections have consequences. Well, so does sex.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProfessorFate on Nov 23, 2020 15:57:07 GMT -8
While compelling, I'm not sure the debate even requires the invocation of Nazi death camps and Iranian stonings. To anyone who claims to believe in "science", the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is "alive" seems obvious. It reproduces its cells, it grows, it begins to differentiate cells to perform different functions, it metabolizes nutrients, it respires and it disposes of waste products, all of which are the very definitions of LIFE. To anyone who claims to believe in "science", the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is also "human" seems just as obvious. Genetically, it is not a dog, a sponge, a piece of brocolli or any other form of life. It is genetically not only 100% HUMAN, but it reflects 50% of its genetic heritage from each parent. So if it is so clearly a "human" "life", it is logically disingenuous to insist it is not a "human being". If legality is the only crutch for allowing abortion, it is a weak one. There are hundreds of things that are legal and immoral, just as there are hundreds of things that are moral and illegal. What I can't comprehend is the reasoning of those who champion keeping alive serial killers and sadistic child rapists, while also championing the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year. I respect women and their right to do what they want with their bodies. But that right should have been exercised when they decided to spread their legs without protection, and the price of that bad decision should not be paid by their unborn infants. We are told all the time that elections have consequences. Well, so does sex. Again, Wonderfully put! Hard to believe that anyone could possibly convince themselves that you're wrong. SCIENCE! |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 24, 2020 2:27:39 GMT -8
..... but if you really think there are "murders" being committed daily in these clinics and all you can do is wave around a sign and march, I don't think much of your passion for your cause. BTW, I think a person might be able to commit the arson of a clinic without hurting anyone. 3. Yes I do oppose the stoning of gay people in Iran...on the contrary they've committed a capital offense. but I'm against the stoning of gay people because I'm against the death penalty as a matter of principle, not because it's being arbitrarily applied or applied to gay people. So, seriously, you believe that...... These are not well thought out conclusions. If the above makes sense to you, then I think we have departed the land of logic and evidently landed on terra infirma. ………………..Luca Luca, you can try to restate my beliefs in such a way as to make them look silly but I've explained what I believe well enough. Anti-abortionists like to use the word "murder' because it's more dramatic and is appealing to the emotions, not because of it's legal accuracy. It would be the same if I labeled you anti-abortionists the "fascist anti-freedom" gang. You're right about one thing...those aren't well thought out conclusions...but I didn't make any of them. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 24, 2020 2:39:14 GMT -8
While compelling, I'm not sure the debate even requires the invocation of Nazi death camps and Iranian stonings. To anyone who claims to believe in "science", the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is "alive" seems obvious. It reproduces its cells, it grows, it begins to differentiate cells to perform different functions, it metabolizes nutrients, it respires and it disposes of waste products, all of which are the very definitions of LIFE. To anyone who claims to believe in "science", the fact that a zygote, embryo or fetus is also "human" seems just as obvious. Genetically, it is not a dog, a sponge, a piece of brocolli or any other form of life. It is genetically not only 100% HUMAN, but it reflects 50% of its genetic heritage from each parent. So if it is so clearly a "human" "life", it is logically disingenuous to insist it is not a "human being". If legality is the only crutch for allowing abortion, it is a weak one. There are hundreds of things that are legal and immoral, just as there are hundreds of things that are moral and illegal. What I can't comprehend is the reasoning of those who champion keeping alive serial killers and sadistic child rapists, while also championing the killing of hundreds of thousands of unborn children every year. I respect women and their right to do what they want with their bodies. But that right should have been exercised when they decided to spread their legs without protection, and the price of that bad decision should not be paid by their unborn infants. We are told all the time that elections have consequences. Well, so does sex. 1. Agree about the Nazi's and the death camps. 2. Yes I believe in science and I believe that a zygote, embryo, or fetus is both "alive" and "human". 3. The legality of abortion is not a crutch or even a reason for allowing abortion. Freedom is the reason. I also have difficulty understanding how someone who is against abortion based on the "sanctity of life" can turn around and call for the execution of another...but that's another story and has no place in this discussion. 4. I too respect a woman's right to choose what to do with her body...and that includes any organisms she may be carrying within her body, human or otherwise. We differ only in when we'd take away her freedom to choose. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Nov 27, 2020 15:21:34 GMT -8
Luca, you can try to restate my beliefs in such a way as to make them look silly but I've explained what I believe well enough. Anti-abortionists like to use the word "murder' because it's more dramatic and is appealing to the emotions, not because of it's legal accuracy. It would be the same if I labeled you anti-abortionists the "fascist anti-freedom" gang. You're right about one thing...those aren't well thought out conclusions...but I didn't make any of them. I don't know that I restated them so much as put them in context. If you feel my summary differs materially from what you said, you’re free to point out my errors. Again, the Pro-Life crowd has as its basic tenet the belief that human life begins at conception. That being the case, abortion inherently involves the killing of innocents - which is the natural law meaning of "murder". Granted, the term is deliberately more dramatic and emotional, but it is consistent with their assumption of embryo-as-human-life. If you disagree with the assumption of human life existing in utero you can justifiably prefer such antiseptic terms as "pregnancy termination", which is technically correct but skirts the fundamental question. If there were no such entity as natural law then there would be no philosophical support for the Nuremberg Principles or the concept of war crimes. " I was just following orders" would be a universal get out of jail free card for war criminals. As you have defined murder, we would be compelled to say that millions of Jews/Gypsies were not murdered by the Nazis but rather were "convicted of capital crimes" and "legally executed". I think most would agree that such characterization is – to put it gently - a bit of rhetorical subterfuge. Just look up "Holocaust" in Wikipedia and elsewhere. They routinely use the term "murder". Why do you suppose that is? Leaving aside the fact that I never said I was opposed to abortion, I am interested in why you would feel that the term "fascist anti-freedom" would be applicable. I can understand the use of "anti-freedom" since those universally opposed to abortion are against the presumed right of a pregnant woman to abort her pregnancy at will. That much is true and the term thus theoretically justifiable. But why "fascist"? What is your understanding of the meaning of that word?..........................Luca |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Nov 28, 2020 3:41:00 GMT -8
Luca, you can try to restate my beliefs in such a way as to make them look silly but I've explained what I believe well enough. Anti-abortionists like to use the word "murder' because it's more dramatic and is appealing to the emotions, not because of it's legal accuracy. It would be the same if I labeled you anti-abortionists the "fascist anti-freedom" gang. You're right about one thing...those aren't well thought out conclusions...but I didn't make any of them. Again, the Pro-Life crowd has as its basic tenet the belief that human life begins at conception. That being the case, abortion inherently involves the killing of innocents - which is the natural law meaning of "murder". As you have defined murder, we would be compelled to say that millions of Jews/Gypsies were not murdered by the Nazis but rather were "convicted of capital crimes" and "legally executed". Leaving aside the fact that I never said I was opposed to abortion, I am interested in why you would feel that the term "fascist anti-freedom" would be applicable. 1. Well, I'm sure that many different legal systems have different definitions for many words, but we were discussing the law...not "natural law" or Lithuanian law"...just the legal statutes in this country. I honestly have no idea what you mean by "natural law". Where do we get "natural law' from? 2. That's not how I define "murder"....that's how the law defines "murder". Not the "killing of an innocent" but the "unlawful killing of another". I don't know how I could possibly make that more clear. 3. I don't think it would be applicable, just more emotionally shocking...you see? |
|
