Those Against Abortion yet Pro-Capital Punishment and War

[Dexter Morgan]

The really funny thing about the use of "an eye for an eye" is the hypocrisy.  The phrase comes from one of god's own commandments about abortion where if two men fight and cause a woman to abort, then the husband who lost the "fetus" gets paid a fine on the other guy.  There is nothing about not aborting a child, or that it is a murder under these circumstances.  Now, if the woman dies in the accidental abortion, then there is revenge on the perpetrator.  So, how is it the religious say abortion is murder when even the bible doesn't state that.  And DEXTER, wouldn't this be going back to the "way they did it in the old days"?  Better go back to the ways in the bible, huh.



    "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

Once again the religion comes up.  Why is it that it does matter what the subject is it always gets spun into religious debate. Now, I have repeated this ad nausem that I don't go to church or study the Bible. When I give an opinion on here it is MY OPINION!!! God has NOTHING to do with my OPINION!!!

1.) Killing an innocent baby because some dumb c*nt can't keep her legs closed is MURDER!!!! My OPINION!!!

2.) Putting individuals who have killed innocent people (violent crime) to death is a good solution!!! My OPINION!!!

Do you see God anywhere in what you have just read? NOPE!!! Unless, you've twisted it your mind. Not every opinion has to do with religious belief. I realize that some people can't see past there utter hatred and obsession with religion but seriously.... GIVE IT A REST!!!

[dan foster]

Once again the religion comes up.  Why is it that it does matter what the subject is it always gets spun into religious debate. Now, I have repeated this ad nausem that I don't go to church or study the Bible. When I give an opinion on here it is MY OPINION!!! God has NOTHING to do with my OPINION!!!

1.) Killing an innocent baby because some dumb c*nt can't keep her legs closed is MURDER!!!! My OPINION!!!

2.) Putting individuals who have killed innocent people (violent crime) to death is a good solution!!! My OPINION!!!

Do you see God anywhere in what you have just read? NOPE!!! Unless, you've twisted it your mind. Not every opinion has to do with religious belief. I realize that some people can't see past there utter hatred and obsession with religion but seriously.... GIVE IT A REST!!!

Sorry, you can blame the religious right for MY OPINIONS on abortion as it relates to morality; they are hypocrites.

Just a couple of questions on all the killing you would do for violent crimes;

- is it OK that a single innocent person die in a mistake as long as we are killing all those "bad people"?

- is it OK that 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians died as a mistake in order to kill the one really bad guy, saddam hussein?

Just curious.
 

[dan foster]

1.) Killing an innocent baby because some dumb c*nt can't keep her legs closed is MURDER!!!! My OPINION!!!

Just a couple more questions;

- should poor people that can't afford birth control be denied sex, or, should catholics that follow the teachings of their pope, and reject birth control, not engage in sex, at all?

- Are you convinced that abortions are done as a birth control, or the lack thereof? 

Also, just out of curiosity; since "the dumb cunt" is the responsible party and probably turning to an abortion as the fix for a mistake, are you advocating the abolition of abortion, all together?  Maybe I missed that somewhere, but it doesn't jive with your overwhelming concern for the innocent victims of violent crimes.

[Sandy Eggo]

Just to add my .02...Dex, I brought up religion. You mentioned "eye for an eye" and although you probably didn't mean it in the religious sense, you'll find that often the right wing religious Conservatives quote the "eye for an eye" scripture as "proof" that capitol punishment is "authorized" by the bible. What I was trying to point out is that the New Testament contradicts that thinking.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Just musing out loud to no one in particular......

"Accidental" pregnancies are accidental in the same sense that "killed by a drunk driver" is accidental.

"Should people who cannot afford birth control (it is dispensed freely in EVERY city of even modest size in the US, btw) be denied having sex?"...I think people who have a middle-class income shouldn't buy yachts they cannot afford the upkeep on. Don't risk having children you do not want or cannot afford, and if that means not having sex, then don't have sex. This isn't rocket surgery, for crying out side!

One cannot make an argument from a moral standpoint on any issue if one does not believe there exists something greater than ourselves. At least, I've never heard/read an argument for such that didn't, at some point, require a priori* knowledge, and you can't get THAT from any Big Bang.


*A priori means "knowledge beforehand; prior to". Example: most creatures are adverse to killing members of their own species from the day they are born. They are not taught this, it is instinctive. Therefore they must have some prior-to-birth knowledge of at least two things: how to recognize other creatures as one of their own species (or not), and, that killing a member of their own species is a bad idea.


Ok, back to your regularly scheduled abortion debate!

[dan foster]

Just musing out loud to no one in particular......

"Accidental" pregnancies are accidental in the same sense that "killed by a drunk driver" is accidental.

"Should people who cannot afford birth control (it is dispensed freely in EVERY city of even modest size in the US, btw) be denied having sex?"...I think people who have a middle-class income shouldn't buy yachts they cannot afford the upkeep on. Don't risk having children you do not want or cannot afford, and if that means not having sex, then don't have sex. This isn't rocket surgery, for crying out side!

One cannot make an argument from a moral standpoint on any issue if one does not believe there exists something greater than ourselves. At least, I've never heard/read an argument for such that didn't, at some point, require a priori* knowledge, and you can't get THAT from any Big Bang.


*A priori means "knowledge beforehand; prior to". Example: most creatures are adverse to killing members of their own species from the day they are born. They are not taught this, it is instinctive. Therefore they must have some prior-to-birth knowledge of at least two things: how to recognize other creatures as one of their own species (or not), and, that killing a member of their own species is a bad idea.


Ok, back to your regularly scheduled abortion debate!

So wrong on so many levels. 

First, higher power and morality are mutually exclusive.  If you need a higher power to keep you straight, then you are at the lowest form of moral development.  You cannot equate religion (you brought it up) with morality.  In fact, most religions are incredibly immoral.

Second, chimps murder each other, dolphins kill harbor seals for sport and ants kill everything without reason.  Which built in moral code do animals work from?  I would suggest a genetic.

[Doc]

IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

As for abortion  there have been aproximately 50 million legal abortions performed licensed practitioners that's 50 million dead babies. You know dang well if murdering the unborn is again outlawed, as it should be, the murder rate of unborn babies will drop dramatically. Very few women have the courage to get involved with back-alley abortions. But, you already knew that. 

[Exterminator]

IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

IMO, the majority of warmongering conservatives are a bunch of little candy-assed pansies who aren't capable of defending themselves.  All of their braggadocio is nothing more than an attempt to mask their obvious inadequacies as men...that's why so many of them have convenient excuses for never having enlisted to serve in the military.

[Ghost of Jaco]

So wrong on so many levels. 

First, higher power and morality are mutually exclusive.  If you need a higher power to keep you straight, then you are at the lowest form of moral development.  You cannot equate religion (your brought it up) with morality.  In fact, most religious are incredibly immoral.

Second, chimps murder each other, dolphins kill harbor seals for sport and ants kill everything without reason.  Which built in moral code do animals work from?  I would suggest a genetic.

I disagree. The concept of "survival of the fittest" would indicate that individual creatures of the same species should eliminate even the others of the same species who vie for available resources in order to survive. Yet by and large they do not. (hmmm...I wonder if harbor seals and dolphins have any dietary convergences?)
From which arises another question: Where does the desire to survive even come from? Genes are a blueprint for how to construct a creature or plant, not how to motivate it to act in a certain manner. That requires a priori knowledge, imo. Which means that knowledge had to be given or implanted by "something" smart enough to know it was needed and powerful enough to impart the knowledge. The same goes for morality. If there are acts that are truly immoral, then from whence does the knowledge of this come from, and how do we know how to recognize immorality when it manifests itself? To say it is genetic is as vague as to say it's from some higher power.

[dan foster]

IMO the majority of liberals don't want us to defend ourselves no matter what. They actually believe wars would cease to be if we just began being nice to those who hate and want to kill us.

As for abortion  there have been aproximately 50 million legal abortions performed licensed practitioners that's 50 million dead babies. You know dang well if murdering the unborn is again outlawed, as it should be, the murder rate of unborn babies will drop dramatically. Very few women have the courage to get involved with back-alley abortions. But, you already knew that. 

More of the same.  Anti-abortion = pro crime.  A majority of those 50 million aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberal coke heads who would have robbed you at gun point in your trailer.

[awol]

just a thought, but how about instead of the posturing and empty assertions, we discuss this logically, and present arguments?  it is a meritous debate, and one that has been going on among the greatest minds on both sides throughout history.

[dan foster]

Genes are a blueprint for how to construct a creature or plant, not how to motivate it to act in a certain manner.

Absolutely wrong again.  No basis in the scientific evidence and a clear indication you know nothing on the subjects of zoology, biology or animal husbandry.  Where did you get such a foolish idea?

Next time you are having sex, ask yourself what motivated me to act in this manner.  Hell, your genes even selected your mate for you (if you have one).  How's that for acting in a certain manner?  And you thought that shiite was your idea, all along, a priori, or not.  Get a clue.

[Ghost of Jaco]

Absolutely wrong again.  No basis in the scientific evidence and a clear indication you know nothing on the subjects of zoology, biology or animal husbandry.  Where did you get such a foolish idea?

WHAT?!? To say that there is no basis in science that the human genome is a "blueprint" for building a human is PREPOSTEROUS! Jeezul Pete!
We learn that in the 4th or 5th grade, for crying out side!
Did you decide before the 5th grade that you were too smart for school, or did that come later? [/sarc]

Next time you are having sex, ask yourself what motivated me to act in this manner. 

Let's just say it was "a desire to pleasurably shed some DNA" and leave it at that, lol!

Hell, your genes even selected your mate for you (if you have one).  How's that for acting in a certain manner? 

Not at all! I selected HER; and it wasn't her "genes" that drew my eye, it was her "jeans". 

And you thought that shiite was your idea, all along, a priori, or not.  Get a clue.

I have clues and lots of them, too. I try to follow them where they logically lead.
You on the other hand don't seem to even aware that there is a MYSTERY! (Lol! Just kidding! *sigh* I love that joke...)

Well, perhaps if I restate the question in a simpler form you might actually answer it rather than prattling on (and proving me right about "ridicule" meaning one is out of ammunition in a debate, btw):
What compels us to NOT murder everyone around us who vies for limited resources? Or accepting Darwin, what counters the compulsion to murder those who vie with us for limited resources? Once you've answered that, answer this: From WHENCE did that compulsion (or the countering force) come?

I say it is a priori knowledge of a defined, absolute morality. And that infers (implies?) something of higher power and intellect.
I am quite interested in your opinion on the issue. I don't give a rat's patootie of your opinion of me, though. Try to keep that in mind and not waste bandwidth lobbing epithets, mmm-kay?.

[Ghost of Jaco]

More of the same.  Anti-abortion = pro crime.  A majority of those 50 million aborted fetuses would have grown up to be liberal coke heads who would have robbed you at gun point in your trailer.

Interesting sidebar: The author of the book "Freekonomics" posits that abortions have led to a net decrease in crime. Pretty much what you said.

[awol]

...that infers (implies?).

it implies, you infer from that.