Catholic Church Calls for Civil Disobedience.

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]ckallander wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don’t understand how Christian’s think that just because abortion is legal it somehow infringes on their religious beliefs. No one is making your pregnant 16 year old daughter (who is going to hell anyway by definition) get an abortion. Why can’t Christians let heathens go to hell in peace?

When you take away a woman’s right to choose you are taking away the very thing that makes her a woman. [/quote]

Uh, the pro-lifers have actually argued from the least faith based position, in this thread. The pro-choice argument is that a sort of golem, a placeholder organism, lives in the tummy until the baby fairy swaps it out with a human, right before it’s entrance into the great wide world. And everyone knows killing golems is a-ok.

122

Indeed, I am all for the killing the golems.

123

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ckallander wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don’t understand how Christian’s think that just because abortion is legal it somehow infringes on their religious beliefs. No one is making your pregnant 16 year old daughter (who is going to hell anyway by definition) get an abortion. Why can’t Christians let heathens go to hell in peace?

When you take away a woman’s right to choose you are taking away the very thing that makes her a woman.

Uh, the pro-lifers have actually argued from the least faith based position, in this thread. The pro-choice argument is that a sort of golem, a placeholder organism, lives in the tummy until the baby fairy swaps it out with a human, right before it’s entrance into the great wide world. And everyone knows killing golems is a-ok.[/quote]

Shit if it’s a gold golem, you get lots of money for killing them. I learned this by playing dragon warrior for NES.

Seriously I didn’t even want to respond to this guy. Taking away a womans right to choose takes away the very thing that makes her a woman? WHAT? What the fuck does that even mean? So if we make a law that states only men shall decide if an abortion can be done or not does that make all men women? His whole post is retarded. And I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, I mean it literally. The thought process smells of someone with an IQ of around 50.

V

124

[quote]ckallander wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I don’t understand how Christian’s think that just because abortion is legal it somehow infringes on their religious beliefs. No one is making your pregnant 16 year old daughter (who is going to hell anyway by definition) get an abortion. Why can’t Christians let heathens go to hell in peace?

When you take away a woman’s right to choose you are taking away the very thing that makes her a woman. [/quote]

You’re ma’am are an idiot, you haven’t read a damn thing. I am positive that Sloth, Veg, and me haven’t said anything about our religion and if we hadn’t stated it earlier no one would have known from our arguments in this thread. Just go back to being a skinny little punk ass and get off the damn thread.

125

[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.

Protesting tax money going to a kill a human is hardly telling people what to do with their bodies…If people want to be piece of shit irresponsible murdering assholes, at least let them do it on their own dime.
If you really like abortion and think it’s a hoot, then I am sure NARAL, Planned Parenthood, or your local baby killing center will be more than happy to take your money, so give till it hurts. [/quote]

  1. That has never been the argument. Red herring. The agenda here is to ban abortion. Full stop.

  2. You clearly missed the part where I said abortion isn’t something I necessarily approve of, yet I’m not so high and mighty that I feel it is my right to ban it for others.

Unless you are about to invent the perfect contraception, thus removing the need for abortion (and saying abstinence only betrays how ignorant you are of typical human stupidity and horniness), then help yourself to a cup of shut the fuck up.

126

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
So would my esteemed religious colleagues then please enlighten me as to what the status is of an IVF fertilized egg in their view?Are you against IVF on principle?

It is a human and should be treated as such. I don’t know enough about the procedure to comment on weather it should continue or not.

To the dolt saying “conciousness” is all that matters. WHAT? so if someone is sleeping you have the right to off them? What if they are in a coma? Go stab someone who is in a coma and see if you get charged with anything. Some of you are making arguments and claiming science is on your side, but then you swing and miss and it just makes you look stupid. I mean think your argument through, don’t just spout off because you are emotional about this and feel like anyone who is pro life wants to punish women or something. Some people actually hold firm that a fertalized agg with unique Human DNA which will develop in to a independant human being if left unmolested is actually a real live human and deserving of protection under our societal laws. (and thier natural rights, like the right to life)

V[/quote]

  1. When you are asleep you are more or less conscious. You lack normal constraints from you sensory perceptions (hence the quasi-disabling of most motor functions like walking and flailing your arms), but you are conscious in a perhaps more slightly loose sense of the word nonetheless.

  2. Coma patients have demonstrated being conscious prior to said coma, and indeed it is possible they are STILL conscious. Vegetative patients are almost routinely taken off life support, despite the fact that we don’t know nearly enough about human consciousness to say whether they are still able to perceive or feel.

Just some fun trivia.

127

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Also pregnancy doesn’t “ruin” a womans body, it was specifically designed to handle it.

V[/quote]

I believe the large part of the objection to banning abortion is that it ruins her life (sometimes).

128

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]

This is perhaps the smartest thing said in this thread.

129

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I am positive that Sloth, Veg, and me haven’t said anything about our religion[/quote]

You don’t really have to, you have a reputation for that sort of thing that precedes you.

Well maybe not so much Vegita. He is still somewhat of a riddle wrapped in an enigma to me.

130

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.

This is perhaps the smartest thing said in this thread.[/quote]

Translation, This is perhaps the thing closest to my view said in this thread.

V

131

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Also pregnancy doesn’t “ruin” a womans body, it was specifically designed to handle it.

V

I believe the large part of the objection to banning abortion is that it ruins her life (sometimes).[/quote]

I don’t believe that was what the person I reponded to was getting at. He specifically said ruining her body, which to me meant she would be physically ruined after the pregnancy? For a given time period or forever? I know plenty of mothers who look like they were never preggers only a couple weeks after the pregnancy. Generally someone who has a tough time with the physical recovery are not taking care of themselves during and after the pregnancy.

Education would be a big plus here instead of abortion. Have doctors teach people what to eat and how much they should be eating. Also [regnant woemen shouldn’t just sit on the couch all day watching TV as soon as they start showing. This is probably the first time in the history of our species where this is even possible to do during a pregnancy, most of the time pregnant women were still doing work around the house, or hut or whatever until they went into labor.

On to your specific point of the life after being ruined. I can only imagine you are saying the mother cannot handle the responsibility of raising a child and that the mothers life is worsened and the childs life is worsened? This is possible, but who are we to judge what level a person should be living at? Some of the greatest human beings arose out of pitiful living conditions because it hardened thier resolve, and made them stronger people. Not everyone is entitled to having a nice cushy lifestyle from the time they are born till the time they die. In fact for some people, a hard upbringing is what will make them succeed later in life.

Of course you are going to have many people fail from that position, guess what, most people fail at life, even if thier childhood was soft and cushy. Many people just don’t have the resolve to do the hard work that it takes to make it above thier peers. Have you ever met a person who has had multiple abortions? I have met a couple, there is no possible way they are any better off than if they had not had the abortions to begin with. Some people just plain suck at life. Allowing them to kill another human being so they may have a “do over” and then another and then another, well thats just friggin rediculous.

I am all for reforming it step by step down to zero abortions over time. I am pretty sure the world would implode if we banned it tomorrow. Lets start by saying you get one in your lifetime, period. Use it wisley, if you do use it you just got your get out of jail free card. Then we can go to the next step of banning all abortions past a certain stage. I’m in favor of 30 days myself, as I can provide good scientific evidence that there can be brain cells that early and if there is brain cells, well, it’s a human. Then say another 10 years down the road, we evolve from being a nation of girls who can’t look another human being in the eye and tell them, no thats just wrong, but will stomach them killing a baby, just so they don’t have to have a confrontation. Into a society where we do the right thing, even if it is hard, even if it is uncomfortable. We become what america has always stood for, the beacon of hope that men and women can do the right thing. I’m beting by this time a lot of others “problems” we have today will be dealt with as well, and I’d be surprised if the nation was worse for it.

V

132

We kill living organisms all the time. Human beings are living organisms.

The only thing that makes adult human beings special is their level of consciousness. Your claims that a clump of cells with human DNA are more special than other non-human living organisms are explicitly or implicitly based on claims of human “specialness” most often wrapped up in ideas of the soul. Hence my accusations.

The potentiality argument holds no water.

Any organism that does not display the requisite level of consciousness does not get any more special treatment than a dog, a cat, a monkey, or a chimp. I am 100% positive you all think that killing a monkey is not that big a deal, and certainly not worth infringing upon a mother’s right to choose what to do with her body.

QED
Consciousness is all that matters when considering the abortion question.
If it is not, explain to me why I should give anymore of a fuck about a clump of cells than I should about a dog, or a clump of cells gestating inside a dog for that matter.

133

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
We kill living organisms all the time. Human beings are living organisms.

The only thing that makes adult human beings special is their level of consciousness. Your claims that a clump of cells with human DNA are more special than other non-human living organisms are explicitly or implicitly based on claims of human “specialness” most often wrapped up in ideas of the soul. Hence my accusations.

The potentiality argument holds no water.

Any organism that does not display the requisite level of consciousness does not get any more special treatment than a dog, a cat, a monkey, or a chimp. I am 100% positive you all think that killing a monkey is not that big a deal, and certainly not worth infringing upon a mother’s right to choose what to do with her body.

QED
Consciousness is all that matters when considering the abortion question.
If it is not, explain to me why I should give anymore of a fuck about a clump of cells than I should about a dog, or a clump of cells gestating inside a dog for that matter.

[/quote]

Do you advocate murdering humans?

134

Poorly phrased question.

135

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I always wonder where the gals are when this topic comes up.I guess they’re tired of being told by all the never to be pregnant vocal guys what they should or should not be allowed to do.Oh well…

Yea, when telling someone what to do involves telling them not to kill other human beings. It doesn’t make them any different than any man I would also tell to not kill another human being. You just like to spin the argument so that you attach your view of an embryo as not human to my beliefs scientific, or religious or whatever and then demonize me based on your belief systems. If you would take two seconds and look at it from my belief system that an embryo is in fact a human being a deserving of protection under societal laws and natural laws, I.E. the right to life, then I’m not telling a woman what to do, only that killing the human growing iside of her will be prosecuted as killing a human.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, though that would be nice. Come up with some scientific argument that is valid that shows us that an embryo is not human, and we will be able to have a nice debate. If you just want me to change what I believe to fit your view of the world, well then shouldn’t I expect you to do the same thing? Heck I’m even providing scientific data to help you on your path to my viewpoint, you give me nothing but sarcasm.

V

You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your viewpoint.I don’t.I don’t expect you to change.I don’t want to change your viewpoint.You feel like I’ve demonized you?Where?Show me.You’ll look long and hard,but I’ll wait.Is it because I believe women have the right to choose what they can and cannot do as regards something that ,unfortunately for you,is their domain?That makes you feel persecuted?So disagreement equals persecution?

Tell me,do the innocents of wars that are euphemistically dubbed ‘collateral damage’ have any less right to live,in your point of view?As I mentioned earlier,IVF? How’s your viewpoint on fertility practices in general?What I would like is some philosophical consistency.Either killing innocent human beings is wrong,or it isn’t.That’s when all the “Well,no but,in some cases…(insert favorite scenario here) it’s sad but unavoidable” shuffling starts.

And that’s even before we get to the point of where does the line in the sand stand as far as what is or what isn’t a ‘human being’ starts to get debated.

I believe that the morality of these things is between each person and whatever moral authority or code they adhere to.Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time,and will continue to do so.Do you think you or any other swinging cock will change that?Why do you think that is?Would you rather have it go into the back alleys again?

I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]

To give you a quick answer to a question you posed and then perhaps projected a little bit on, yes I do view every single “innocent” human life as having the right to live. Doesn’t matter if that life was made in a clinic, via the old fashioned dick to pussy transaction, or if your mom sat on a toilet seat with cum on it and get herself preggers. As a society, we should strive to protect the lives of our fellow humans and prosecute those who violate those rights. So basically what I am saying is I am all for prosecuting anyone who has taken by active decision, another human life under murder 1. Accidental deaths can be handled by manslaughter or other lesser charges but no one gets a pass.

Obviously in this barbaric time we live in, it’s going to be really hard to hold our own military to the same standards. However, I am at total disagreement with our current military ventures and believe we should pull our guys back to our borders until someone puts a bomb on our soil or tries to put boots on our soil. I think we should be fighting terrorists with the CIA, undercover special ops guys who go in and either eliminate known terrorists or bring them in to face thier crimes.

This whole thing is off the topic though. Was my argument too strong for you to just answer straight up? Why make me chase all these tangents down. Of course I have to or else you will accuse me of dodging your questions or accusations.

To get to the part of you demonizing me, you didn’t demonize me specifically, you just demonized anyone who was pro life with the post about running the women out of the discussion. We ran them out because we are insensitive and will never understand the pain they go through yet we sit and make these decisions for them or try to. That was your point, and it’s main spear is an attempt to make pro life people look like insensitive men with no respect for women. Unfortunatley it’s not true and I suspect that my argument got you uncomfortable else someone who doesn’t care what I think or believe wouldn’t have typed up a 5 paragraph response to my post.

Now back to my origional request, bring some science to the table telling me exactly when a human comes into existance. For you to say it’s not relevant is assenine and you my friend are just dodging. Do that or go away.

V[/quote]

So, are you suggesting that a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? Because, in a sense she unintentionally killed the fetus inside of her?

Or, do you then think that any president/world leader who declares war should also be charged with murder/manslaughter since “collateral damage” is pretty much an inescapable reality of modern warfare/bombing? A fact which they must have known before declaring war.

Or, even if by some miracle no civilians were killed during a war, that say any president/world leader who declared war on a non-invading country (since I think most would agree that self defense does not constitute murder) should be charged with mass murder? After all, many of the enemy troops that were killed in such a war may have simply felt that they were defending themselves (thus justified in their attempts to kill their perceived attackers)?

If not, then do you think that someone who kills someone in defense of their life, or an innocent’s life should also be charged with murder? In other words, do you then believe that there is no situation/occasion where killing is justified?

Not saying that I disagree with your assertion that life is precious, just trying to figure out where (if anywhere) and for what reasons you “draw the line”. And maybe provoking some more discussion about the topic of when (if ever) you/others think that killing is justified.

136

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I always wonder where the gals are when this topic comes up.I guess they’re tired of being told by all the never to be pregnant vocal guys what they should or should not be allowed to do.Oh well…

Yea, when telling someone what to do involves telling them not to kill other human beings. It doesn’t make them any different than any man I would also tell to not kill another human being. You just like to spin the argument so that you attach your view of an embryo as not human to my beliefs scientific, or religious or whatever and then demonize me based on your belief systems. If you would take two seconds and look at it from my belief system that an embryo is in fact a human being a deserving of protection under societal laws and natural laws, I.E. the right to life, then I’m not telling a woman what to do, only that killing the human growing iside of her will be prosecuted as killing a human.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, though that would be nice. Come up with some scientific argument that is valid that shows us that an embryo is not human, and we will be able to have a nice debate. If you just want me to change what I believe to fit your view of the world, well then shouldn’t I expect you to do the same thing? Heck I’m even providing scientific data to help you on your path to my viewpoint, you give me nothing but sarcasm.

V

You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your viewpoint.I don’t.I don’t expect you to change.I don’t want to change your viewpoint.You feel like I’ve demonized you?Where?Show me.You’ll look long and hard,but I’ll wait.Is it because I believe women have the right to choose what they can and cannot do as regards something that ,unfortunately for you,is their domain?That makes you feel persecuted?So disagreement equals persecution?

Tell me,do the innocents of wars that are euphemistically dubbed ‘collateral damage’ have any less right to live,in your point of view?As I mentioned earlier,IVF? How’s your viewpoint on fertility practices in general?What I would like is some philosophical consistency.Either killing innocent human beings is wrong,or it isn’t.That’s when all the “Well,no but,in some cases…(insert favorite scenario here) it’s sad but unavoidable” shuffling starts.

And that’s even before we get to the point of where does the line in the sand stand as far as what is or what isn’t a ‘human being’ starts to get debated.

I believe that the morality of these things is between each person and whatever moral authority or code they adhere to.Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time,and will continue to do so.Do you think you or any other swinging cock will change that?Why do you think that is?Would you rather have it go into the back alleys again?

I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]

To give you a quick answer to a question you posed and then perhaps projected a little bit on, yes I do view every single “innocent” human life as having the right to live. Doesn’t matter if that life was made in a clinic, via the old fashioned dick to pussy transaction, or if your mom sat on a toilet seat with cum on it and get herself preggers. As a society, we should strive to protect the lives of our fellow humans and prosecute those who violate those rights. So basically what I am saying is I am all for prosecuting anyone who has taken by active decision, another human life under murder 1. Accidental deaths can be handled by manslaughter or other lesser charges but no one gets a pass.

Obviously in this barbaric time we live in, it’s going to be really hard to hold our own military to the same standards. However, I am at total disagreement with our current military ventures and believe we should pull our guys back to our borders until someone puts a bomb on our soil or tries to put boots on our soil. I think we should be fighting terrorists with the CIA, undercover special ops guys who go in and either eliminate known terrorists or bring them in to face thier crimes.

This whole thing is off the topic though. Was my argument too strong for you to just answer straight up? Why make me chase all these tangents down. Of course I have to or else you will accuse me of dodging your questions or accusations.

To get to the part of you demonizing me, you didn’t demonize me specifically, you just demonized anyone who was pro life with the post about running the women out of the discussion. We ran them out because we are insensitive and will never understand the pain they go through yet we sit and make these decisions for them or try to. That was your point, and it’s main spear is an attempt to make pro life people look like insensitive men with no respect for women. Unfortunatley it’s not true and I suspect that my argument got you uncomfortable else someone who doesn’t care what I think or believe wouldn’t have typed up a 5 paragraph response to my post.

Now back to my origional request, bring some science to the table telling me exactly when a human comes into existance. For you to say it’s not relevant is assenine and you my friend are just dodging. Do that or go away.

V[/quote]

So, are you suggesting that a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? Because, in a sense she unintentionally killed the fetus inside of her?

Or, do you then think that any president/world leader who declares war should also be charged with murder/manslaughter since “collateral damage” is pretty much an inescapable reality of modern warfare/bombing? A fact which they must have known before declaring war.

Or, even if by some miracle no civilians were killed during a war, that say any president/world leader who declared war on a non-invading country (since I think most would agree that self defense does not constitute murder) should be charged with mass murder? After all, many of the enemy troops that were killed in such a war may have simply felt that they were defending themselves (thus justified in their attempts to kill their perceived attackers)?

If not, then do you think that someone who kills someone in defense of their life, or an innocent’s life should also be charged with murder? In other words, do you then believe that there is no situation/occasion where killing is justified?

Not saying that I disagree with your assertion that life is precious, just trying to figure out where (if anywhere) and for what reasons you “draw the line”. And maybe provoking some more discussion about the topic of when (if ever) you/others think that killing is justified.[/quote]

There is a distinction between murder and killing. About the miscarriage, I think I already addressed this, it would be absurd to say anyone is at fault when something, as traumatizing and unfortunate as it is, happens that is obviously out of the control of the mother.

There is a difference between doing something malicious and ending somethings life, and when something happens accidentally.

On the President situation, there is many people in the world who try to press war crimes against Bush and other government officials. However, there will be collateral damage in war, which you try to prevent and if the President advocates or dictates the soldiers should make collateral damage in war then yes they should be pressed with charges.

If the soldiers however are the ones at fault for the collateral damage themselves by being neglectful or malicious in the actions (mowing down a village for no reason, etc.) then they should be taken court martial and charges be pressed.

137

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
Poorly phrased question.[/quote]

Not to insult you, but I am not sure you understand the words that you write.

The phrased question was actually written perfectly, because when you did not answer 1) it showed to me that you were not willing to look at the situation logically or 2) you advocate the murder of humans, which would make anything you would have said from now on hold no weight (which you in my eyes have already lost all clout and I am just trying to show you of your ways) and there could no longer be debate on this subject with you if you advocate the murder of humans because you do not find the value of human life precious.

138

I am looking at the situation entirely logically. You are the one slapping the label “human” on anything with human DNA. It’s a poorly phrased question because your definition of human is ambiguous.

I don’t, and there is no reason to, find the value of “human life” precious. Humans are animals. As such, the only thing MORE “precious” about human life than animal is the subjective conscious experience of individuals. If human-quality consciousness does not exist, there is nothing to make the biological matter any more precious than any other clump of biological matter. I really don’t see what is so inscrutable my logic here.

At least you are finally admitting that you find human life precious because you think its specialer (via its soul) than non-human life.

139

[quote]IgneLudo wrote:
I am looking at the situation entirely logically. You are the one slapping the label “human” on anything with human DNA. It’s a poorly phrased question because your definition of human is ambiguous.

I don’t, and there is no reason to, find the value of “human life” precious. Humans are animals. As such, the only thing MORE “precious” about human life than animal is the subjective conscious experience of individuals. If human-quality consciousness does not exist, there is nothing to make the biological matter any more precious than any other clump of biological matter. I really don’t see what is so inscrutable my logic here.

At least you are finally admitting that you find human life precious because you think its specialer (via its soul) than non-human life. [/quote]

So by your logic we should slap the label “monkey” or “dog” on things with human DNA, up until the point where YOU deem them to be now worthy of being labeled human. Yea that makes complete sence and is 100% scientific. How could I have missed something that easy to understand. You sir have changed my mind I am now pro choice. Yay!

V

140

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
I always wonder where the gals are when this topic comes up.I guess they’re tired of being told by all the never to be pregnant vocal guys what they should or should not be allowed to do.Oh well…

Yea, when telling someone what to do involves telling them not to kill other human beings. It doesn’t make them any different than any man I would also tell to not kill another human being. You just like to spin the argument so that you attach your view of an embryo as not human to my beliefs scientific, or religious or whatever and then demonize me based on your belief systems. If you would take two seconds and look at it from my belief system that an embryo is in fact a human being a deserving of protection under societal laws and natural laws, I.E. the right to life, then I’m not telling a woman what to do, only that killing the human growing iside of her will be prosecuted as killing a human.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too, though that would be nice. Come up with some scientific argument that is valid that shows us that an embryo is not human, and we will be able to have a nice debate. If you just want me to change what I believe to fit your view of the world, well then shouldn’t I expect you to do the same thing? Heck I’m even providing scientific data to help you on your path to my viewpoint, you give me nothing but sarcasm.

V

You’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your viewpoint.I don’t.I don’t expect you to change.I don’t want to change your viewpoint.You feel like I’ve demonized you?Where?Show me.You’ll look long and hard,but I’ll wait.Is it because I believe women have the right to choose what they can and cannot do as regards something that ,unfortunately for you,is their domain?That makes you feel persecuted?So disagreement equals persecution?

Tell me,do the innocents of wars that are euphemistically dubbed ‘collateral damage’ have any less right to live,in your point of view?As I mentioned earlier,IVF? How’s your viewpoint on fertility practices in general?What I would like is some philosophical consistency.Either killing innocent human beings is wrong,or it isn’t.That’s when all the “Well,no but,in some cases…(insert favorite scenario here) it’s sad but unavoidable” shuffling starts.

And that’s even before we get to the point of where does the line in the sand stand as far as what is or what isn’t a ‘human being’ starts to get debated.

I believe that the morality of these things is between each person and whatever moral authority or code they adhere to.Women have been having abortions since the beginning of time,and will continue to do so.Do you think you or any other swinging cock will change that?Why do you think that is?Would you rather have it go into the back alleys again?

I am pro choice.That is not the same a being a fervent advocate of abortion.I believe that prevention is better,and that contraception and education is preferable,but that shit happens and people sometimes have to make difficult choices.I would rather have those hard choices be made out in the open.
[/quote]

To give you a quick answer to a question you posed and then perhaps projected a little bit on, yes I do view every single “innocent” human life as having the right to live. Doesn’t matter if that life was made in a clinic, via the old fashioned dick to pussy transaction, or if your mom sat on a toilet seat with cum on it and get herself preggers. As a society, we should strive to protect the lives of our fellow humans and prosecute those who violate those rights. So basically what I am saying is I am all for prosecuting anyone who has taken by active decision, another human life under murder 1. Accidental deaths can be handled by manslaughter or other lesser charges but no one gets a pass.

Obviously in this barbaric time we live in, it’s going to be really hard to hold our own military to the same standards. However, I am at total disagreement with our current military ventures and believe we should pull our guys back to our borders until someone puts a bomb on our soil or tries to put boots on our soil. I think we should be fighting terrorists with the CIA, undercover special ops guys who go in and either eliminate known terrorists or bring them in to face thier crimes.

This whole thing is off the topic though. Was my argument too strong for you to just answer straight up? Why make me chase all these tangents down. Of course I have to or else you will accuse me of dodging your questions or accusations.

To get to the part of you demonizing me, you didn’t demonize me specifically, you just demonized anyone who was pro life with the post about running the women out of the discussion. We ran them out because we are insensitive and will never understand the pain they go through yet we sit and make these decisions for them or try to. That was your point, and it’s main spear is an attempt to make pro life people look like insensitive men with no respect for women. Unfortunatley it’s not true and I suspect that my argument got you uncomfortable else someone who doesn’t care what I think or believe wouldn’t have typed up a 5 paragraph response to my post.

Now back to my origional request, bring some science to the table telling me exactly when a human comes into existance. For you to say it’s not relevant is assenine and you my friend are just dodging. Do that or go away.

V[/quote]

So, are you suggesting that a woman should be charged with manslaughter if she has a miscarriage? Because, in a sense she unintentionally killed the fetus inside of her?

Or, do you then think that any president/world leader who declares war should also be charged with murder/manslaughter since “collateral damage” is pretty much an inescapable reality of modern warfare/bombing? A fact which they must have known before declaring war.

Or, even if by some miracle no civilians were killed during a war, that say any president/world leader who declared war on a non-invading country (since I think most would agree that self defense does not constitute murder) should be charged with mass murder? After all, many of the enemy troops that were killed in such a war may have simply felt that they were defending themselves (thus justified in their attempts to kill their perceived attackers)?

If not, then do you think that someone who kills someone in defense of their life, or an innocent’s life should also be charged with murder? In other words, do you then believe that there is no situation/occasion where killing is justified?

Not saying that I disagree with your assertion that life is precious, just trying to figure out where (if anywhere) and for what reasons you “draw the line”. And maybe provoking some more discussion about the topic of when (if ever) you/others think that killing is justified.[/quote]

I think Brother Chris answered this pretty closely to how I would have. You treat a miscarriage like any other human death. Police questioning, Maybe the doctor first, “hey doc, what happened?” Doc: “it looks like it was purely a natural occurance, there was nothing we could have done to prevent this.” End of case, file it move on to the next one. Doc:“It looks like the mother was drinking and smoking heavily. I warned her repeatedly that this would damage the fetus and possibly kill the baby but she didn’t seem to listen to my warnings. She may have also been using harder drugs but I can’t be certain” Investigation continues and possible charges are filed. In a perfect world, you would treat a fetus exactly like you would any other human being. I mean they are a human being so I think they at least deserve that much.

V