Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
Switch to Forum Live View
Locked: Why murder should be legal
5 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2009 - 12:10AM #11
mountain_man
Posts: 38,736

Dec 18, 2009 -- 4:24PM, karbie wrote:

....We've had this exact thread before, haven't we? I guess it's rerun time here too.some things--including tired old cliches and left over rhetoric--just don't reheat that well.



That's the problem; these religous extremists will not stop until everyone is under their control. I blame the moderate and reasonable Christians out there. They remain silent and let the extemists speak for all christiandom.


Murder is illegal, but that hasn't stopped the extremists from killing doctors.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2009 - 2:53PM #12
newsjunkie
Posts: 5,741

Dec 18, 2009 -- 4:52PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Dec 18, 2009 -- 3:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Nobody is forcing a religious belief on anyone because murder is illegal -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the US and on the planet agree that murder should be illegal. Doesn't matter what religion holds sway, or if none does -- the vast majority of people would not favor legalized murder.



Oi vey. This again? Don't you ever get tired of this? I know I do. So you agree that if the majority of people say abortion should be illegal outside of situation X, that it should be illegal outside of situation X, correct? lol, of course you don't. So why mention majorities in the first place?


But, even still, that wasn't the point and your response was mildly ironic. Christians opposing murder because the Bible says it's wrong doesn't constitute making a religious argument, but Christians opposing abortion even when the Bible doesn't say it's wrong constitutes making a religious argument?


You don't know much about catholicism do you? The RCC's opposition to abortion is most definately based on religion. The RCC does not base its religious laws solely on the Bible. You ought to go out and do some reading about Catholicism before you try to discuss their beliefs.


And I never said that Christians opposing murder does't constitute making a religious argument. Once again you are arguing against things never said. Don't you get tired of chasing your tail like that? I'm not responding to the rest of your post. It's the same old same old, and very tiresome at this point. Too many times you claim that I am arguing things that I am not. Whether this is due to careless reading or a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and waste my time, I don't know and frankly don't care, but from now on once you play that card, the discussion is over.





Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2009 - 4:42PM #13
Bei1052
Posts: 986

Dec 19, 2009 -- 2:53PM, newsjunkie wrote:

You don't know much about catholicism do you?



Nope.

The RCC's opposition to abortion is most definately based on religion.



It's a good thing I didn't say it wasn't.

The RCC does not base its religious laws solely on the Bible.



I never said they did.

You ought to go out and do some reading about Catholicism before you try to discuss their beliefs.



Who was debating Catholicism?

And I never said that Christians opposing murder does't constitute making a religious argument. Once again you are arguing against things never said. Don't you get tired of chasing your tail like that?



Who's chasing whose tail? You really should read the stuff I type out (The stuff you're supposedly responding to).

You do realize that you just destroyed your own argument, correct? If Christians opposing murder is a religious argument, and if it's wrong to force one's religious ideals on another, then murder should be legal because making murder illegal would be forcing a set of religious ideals on someone who isn't, say, Christian. Of course, you consider that poppycock because it would mean that if Christianity didn't exist, those who are currently Christian would support making murder legal as the only reason they supported making it illegal was because they were Christians. No. You say that people consider murder wrong regardless of whether or not they're religious.


...Which, you know, all goes back to my first post (And my second post as well). Are you telling me that, say, Christians only believe abortion is murder because the Bible says so, or everyone who believe abortion is murder and should be illegal to be a Christian? 'Cuz, you know, I don't think so. Abortion has nothing to do with religion, and those who assert as much (Typically PC'ers making that accussation of PL'ers) are engaging in a red herring.

I'm not responding to the rest of your post. It's the same old same old, and very tiresome at this point. Too many times you claim that I am arguing things that I am not. Whether this is due to careless reading or a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and waste my time, I don't know and frankly don't care, but from now on once you play that card, the discussion is over.



You know... I'm really no longer surprised by this, as I've realized that whenever faced with a question you cannot answer or faced with a proposition which either points out the obvious contradictions in your argument or errors/flaws in your logic, you either accuse me of being 'obtuse' or you claim you have tons of work to do. I really do hate it when people avoid answering questions posed to them (Almost as much as I hate straw men). Well, unfortunately for you, I can read and, unfortunately for you, there's no obfustication in my posts. There's no need for it. You do a good job of digging yourself into a logical hole all on your own. You don't get to make up a special set of rules for abortion. It's just that simple. Of course, since all of your arguments involve making up special rules for abortion (i.e., giving abortion special considerations so that it's treated differently under the law than anything else), you cannot logically defend your stance when you either hold abortion to the same standard as everything else or everything else to the same standard of abortion. It's quite simple, really.

Have you ever wondered why so few PL'ers post here? I'll give you a hint. It probably has something to do with the fact that A LOT of the PC'ers here quite frequently engage in those things which they like to accuse PL'ers of. It's... Ironic >_<

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2009 - 8:45PM #14
karbie
Posts: 3,329

Dec 19, 2009 -- 2:53PM, newsjunkie wrote:


Dec 18, 2009 -- 4:52PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Dec 18, 2009 -- 3:19PM, newsjunkie wrote:

Nobody is forcing a religious belief on anyone because murder is illegal -- the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in the US and on the planet agree that murder should be illegal. Doesn't matter what religion holds sway, or if none does -- the vast majority of people would not favor legalized murder.



Oi vey. This again? Don't you ever get tired of this? I know I do. So you agree that if the majority of people say abortion should be illegal outside of situation X, that it should be illegal outside of situation X, correct? lol, of course you don't. So why mention majorities in the first place?


But, even still, that wasn't the point and your response was mildly ironic. Christians opposing murder because the Bible says it's wrong doesn't constitute making a religious argument, but Christians opposing abortion even when the Bible doesn't say it's wrong constitutes making a religious argument?


You don't know much about catholicism do you? The RCC's opposition to abortion is most definately based on religion. The RCC does not base its religious laws solely on the Bible. You ought to go out and do some reading about Catholicism before you try to discuss their beliefs.


And I never said that Christians opposing murder does't constitute making a religious argument. Once again you are arguing against things never said. Don't you get tired of chasing your tail like that? I'm not responding to the rest of your post. It's the same old same old, and very tiresome at this point. Too many times you claim that I am arguing things that I am not. Whether this is due to careless reading or a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and waste my time, I don't know and frankly don't care, but from now on once you play that card, the discussion is over.








this is a case of a molehill adamately insisting it is a mountain no matter what discussions are brought against it. The lengths and tangents gone off on to attempt to prove the rest of us are always wrong if we disagree usually serves to have exactly the opposite effect.The mere fact that we DO argue is then treated with contempt mixed with the old childhood "Made you look, made you look!". The "Is abortion murder thread ran to 64 pages and is now simply being reheated under "Why murder should be legal".


In cases like this, the best thing to do is just cut short the thread by not responding and expend time elsewhere.

"You are letting your opinion be colored by facts again."
'When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you."
these are both from my father.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 19, 2009 - 11:25PM #15
cyngarrison
Posts: 232

Dec 18, 2009 -- 6:55PM, Bei1052 wrote:


Other legislation has defined the fetus as a person under fetal homicide or "feticide" laws.  Such legislation is hotly debated under names such as the Fetal Protection Act, the Preborn Victims of Violence Act and the Unborn Victim of Violence Act.  Those supporting these acts, often pro-life advocates, say that both the lives of the pregnant woman and the fetus should be explicitly protected.  They assert that fetal homicide laws justly criminalize these cases and provide an opportunity to protect unborn children and their mothers.


Those on the other side feel that laws to protect a fetus could become a "slippery slope" that could jeopardize a woman's right to choose an abortion.  Pro-choice advocates say such laws grant a fetus legal status distinct from the pregnant woman - possibly creating an adversarial relationship between a woman and her baby.  They are also concerned that the laws could be interpreted to apply to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy (such as smoking, drinking or using drugs).  They prefer criminalizing an assault on a pregnant woman and recognizing her as the only victim.




This statement about laws applied to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy is an interesting point. Some PCer's are so hung up on it's the woman's body they overlook the fact that her drug use could cause lifetime problems including preterm labor and the long list of permanent effects from it. They are possibly subjecting these kids to a lifetime of suffering and pain so the womans right not to do whatever she please with her body it upheld. That's why I find it comical when I hear someone say PLers don't care about children after they are born. Who cares if the kid has intracranial hemorrhaging or even dies as long as the woman can do whatever she wants with her body that's all we care about.


Seriously good for the Ohio Supreme Court for ruling that a newborn testing positive for drugs was child abuse.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 20, 2009 - 12:22AM #16
mountain_man
Posts: 38,736

Dec 19, 2009 -- 11:25PM, cyngarrison wrote:

This statement about laws applied to a woman's behavior during her pregnancy is an interesting point.



It's actually irrelevant. Those laws are just a backdoor attempt to criminalize abortion. They are written specifically with that in mind.


Some PCer's are so hung up on it's the woman's body they overlook the fact that her drug use could cause lifetime problems including preterm labor and the long list of permanent effects from it.



We are not "hung up" on anything. It IS the woman's body and she has absolute control over her reproductive status. That's a fact the PLs refuse to acknowledge. About the drug use? Do you plan on locking up every pregnant woman to make sure they eat the proper diet and abstain from drugs? Arresting the woman after the fact is not going to help anyone.


That's why I find it comical when I hear someone say PLers don't care about children after they are born.



It's true though.


Seriously good for the Ohio Supreme Court for ruling that a newborn testing positive for drugs was child abuse.



So, put the mother in prison and pay a foster family to raise the child? You'd be paying for the meals and housing of both of them. Why not actually do something to HELP the woman and her drug problem instead of waiting to bust her after the birth?

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 20, 2009 - 4:48PM #17
cyngarrison
Posts: 232

Dec 20, 2009 -- 12:22AM, mountain_man wrote:


Dec 19, 2009 -- 11:25PM, cyngarrison wrote:



It's actually irrelevant. Those laws are just a backdoor attempt to criminalize abortion. They are written specifically with that in mind.



First off what laws are you referring to, as far as I know there aren't any specific laws pertaining to drugs use while pregnant. The mothers are usually charged under some form of child abuse or something similar.


We are not "hung up" on anything. It IS the woman's body and she has absolute control over her reproductive status. That's a fact the PLs refuse to acknowledge. About the drug use? Do you plan on locking up every pregnant woman to make sure they eat the proper diet and abstain from drugs? Arresting the woman after the fact is not going to help anyone.



Doing drugs while you are pregnant and having control over you reproductive status are two separate issues. The latter can sentence the child to a lifetime of pain and suffering. Just because our are able to get pregnant does not give you the right to physically, mental, or emotionally cause another human pain and suffering. I didn't say anything about locking anyone up, put the mother in rehab and give her some parenting classes until she is able to care for her child in the right way. If you aren't able to stay off of drugs long enough to have the kid then I don't see how you can be a fit parent once the child is born. There a huge difference between someone who does drugs ever now and then and someone who is so strung out that they don't give a crap who they hurt. Oh and I think that we all know there is a huge leap from diet to drug use.


It's true though.



Right so your the authority on PL behavior and thinking. I am sure that my children would disagree with you if you told them I didn't care about them. Besides PCers are the ones who are saying that pregnant women should be able to do drugs while pregnant. Knowing the effects of drug abuse on the fetus I would say sounds like most PCer's who believe this don't care about the child only the mother.


So, put the mother in prison and pay a foster family to raise the child? You'd be paying for the meals and housing of both of them. Why not actually do something to HELP the woman and her drug problem instead of waiting to bust her after the birth?



Who said anything about putting the mother in prison? I do think that an unfit parent shouldn't have custody of her child. Like I said I don't see how someone who would risk subjecting their child to the things that drug use can cause could be considered a fit parent. Not to mention some of the things that people do while they are on drugs. If that means paying for anything to get the child in to a better situation then fine. I am sure that most children who live with parents that to heavy in to drugs would rather not live with them, I say this from personal experience. Just ask the little boy who is now blinded due to the actions of his father who was under the influence of PCP. Here's a link, I do want to provide a warning the story is disturbing.


www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x33972912...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 22, 2009 - 12:03AM #18
Marysara722
Posts: 2,550


This thread has been temporarily closed for review.


MSara
BNet Community Host
ADB

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 2  •  Prev 1 2
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook