Is It Ever Right To Take The Life Of Another Human Being?

1. 71

   Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years ago

   What gives us humans worth and value? Is It Ever Right To Take The Life Of An Innocent Human Life?
   
   Is the unborn baby a human life? If it is, why is it right to take it's life?
   
   What say ye?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      What we do
      No
      No
      It is not
      Piss off

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         My reply is a composite of my responses to the nice folks who took some time to offer to weigh in. If nobody responded their wouldn't be much of a "discussion" forum would it? I appreciate the responses even though I don't agree with all of what was said. But we can respect each other's opinions even without agreeing right?
         
         Mark you're answers were short and to the point, lol. And I don't necessarily like to preach but sometimes you have to say what has to be said for to hold your silence may be more deadly than speaking. What I really like to do is get people to think, to get people to open up within their own assumptions. For that makes for better discussion rather than just having people listen to you preach, although that is necessary at times as well. And by the way everyone "preaches" it just may not be a sermon in a church that they're preaching but we all do it whether we know it or not.
         
         Mark Knowles  -- you said, "what we do" gives us human worth and value huh? So would you tell your grandmother (if she was 90yrs old) that she doesn't have as much human worth and value as you do because you are younger than her? Would you accept that from your kids (if you have any) if they said that to you when you were 90? I'm interested in your response. What about the handicapp? Are they not worth as much as the next guy? You see that worldview comes from an Atheistic/Evolution perspective and how can a non-moral, non-intellegent "process" like Evolution give human life value? A car doesn't give itself worth just like humans in and out themselves can not give each other worth. Only the creator of the car gives the car worth and value and purpose and only our Creator gives us humans worth and purpose. But Mark how does an Atheistic worldview give people worth when Atheism is based in part on Evolution and Evolution is not a Creator?
         
         PS: Mark maybe you should change your writing name to "Dontthinkaboutitjustdoasyouretold" lol
         
         

         replyreport
         1. 57

            Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Well, going on past experience, you like to preach rather than have a discussion. this is the first time I have seen you come back and respond.
            
            
            
            
            Why would you assume that I would negate the last 90 years of her life? Why would you assume I consider myself to have more "value" (whatever that is supposed to mean) because I am younger?
            
            Although - you do have a point. Who would you prefer helping you to survive in the wilderness - a 90 year old woman in a wheelchair or a 47 year year old male in his prime?
            
            I guess it depends on how you value some one. You seem to have jumped to a lot of conclusions here. I certainly don't devalue them because they are old, but I would think in a slave auction, the 15 year old girl might fetch more than the 90 year old. Wouldn't you?
            
            I am interested in hearing why you jumped to all these conclusions.
            
            
            
            This is pure garbage. Why would you think I do not see value in some one who is handicapped? What has a natural process such as evolution have anything to do with how I "value" some one. You have no idea as to my value system. None. Zero. You just assume that because I do not believe in your hypocritical religion I do not have one. How very christian of you.
            
            Or are you saying that in your world the old and handicapped do not die off?
            
            Why on earth do you think evolution is a belief system rather than a proven scientific theory?
            
            Evolution has nothing to do with morals, or ethics. Atheism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.
            
            The car is "worth" what you can sell it for. Nothing more, nothing less. The creator has nothing to do with it. If no one buys the car at the price quoted by it's creator, the car sells for less. Simple.
            
            
            
            And why don't you change your name to "Ihavenoideawhatevolutionisandiamignorantenoughtothinkitisamoralcodethatgoesagainstthe
            wordofgod"?
            
            
            
            In fact, I even started a thread for ignorant people such as yourself to try and help you understand that evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophy. Try reading it:
            
            
            http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
            
            If you have trouble with any of the big words, feel free to ask me to explain them
            
            Ignorance is not an excuse.
            
            Although you did get one thing right - starting this religious thread in the politics forum where it belongs.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Mark thank you for contributing to this forum I do appreciate it.
               
               You said, "You just assume that because I do not believe in your hypocritical religion I do not have one. How very christian of you."
               
               I'm not assuming that because you do not believe like I believe. I'm not assuming at all that's why I'm ASKING YOU QUESTIONS. If I already knew something I wouldn't ask you questions would I?
               
               
               Then you said, "Why on earth do you think evolution is a belief system rather than a proven scientific theory?"
               
               Evolution is just a vehicle to teach Atheism and what you said is an oxymoron. Why? Because if evolution could be proven scientifically it wouldn't still be called a theory. Some of the best scientists in the world WHO ARE NOT CHRISTIANS BY THE WAY also deny that evolution is a proven fact.
               
               Next you said, "Evolution has nothing to do with morals, or ethics." That is exactly why people FLOCK to this theory because it is an a-moral system. People would rather worship at the altar of evolution because they do not have to be morally accountable to a-moral system than to give an account to a moral God. Does evolution condemn a person for having sex with their dog or another married woman? NO! So why wouldn't people flock to that theory and then distort science and say "it's proven" to give it legitimacy so in turn people can legitimize their abhorent behaviors.
               
               
               Non-believing Biologist Sir Julian Huxley didn't conceal an underlying motivation in his well-known quote explaining why evolution was so eagerly embraced: "...because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
               
               
               Finally you said "The car is "worth" what you can sell it for. Nothing more, nothing less. The creator has nothing to do with it." So Mark what is your worth? Who gives you worth?
               
               No human has OBJECTIVE worth IN AND OF THEMSELVES. Humanity only has objective worth because there exist and OJBECTIVE MORAL LAW and if there's a Moral Law there has to be a OBJECTIVE TRANSCENDENTAL MORAL LAW GIVER (i .e. GOD).
               
               The reason and unborn has objective value is because it was God who created that baby in the womb and only God (who gives life) has a right to take it. Mankind doesn't give life therefore they are not allowed to take the life of an innocent unborn child.

               replyreport
               1. 57

                  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

                  This is complete rubbish. Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.
                  
                  Please read the thread I started and linked to that explains what the word "theory" means when used as a scientific term.
                  
                  Evolution is most definitely NOT a vehicle to teach atheism. It has absolutely zero to do with religion. I understand it proves that the bible is not to be taken literally - but I never thought it was.
                  
                  Seriously - educate yourself a little before making sweeping statements such as this. I know knowledge threatens your faulty belief systems, but hanging on to them in the face of proven facts, just makes you appear unintelligent. this is the link again:
                  
                  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
                  
                  I hope that helps.

                  replyreport
   2. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      It is morally okay to take the life of an enemy soldier if you are fighting in a just war such as World War II.
      
      One can argue forever on when a zygote, embryo, fetus become a human being worthy of protecting under the law. The majority in the U.S. support abortion with limitations--early term, pregnancies resulting from rape or incest and to protect the life of the mother. I believe that is the current ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Rowe v. Wade which I support.
      
      In my opinion the development of a human being  from conception to zygote, to fetus to baby to a human being is a gradual rather than an instantaneous one. The farther along in the process the greater the moral justification for protecting the life. These decisions are best left to the mother and her physician, in my opinion.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Ralph Deeds ---- you said, 'The farther along in the process the greater the moral justification for protecting the life. These decisions are best left to the mother and her physician, in my opinion." How far would you take that logic? And are you saying that you disagree with the medical evidence that declares that the mother and the unborn baby are TWO separate bodies that have two different blood types? If you do agree and if a mother is permitted to abort (kill) another separate human body (the baby inside her) then why isn't murder permitted when it's just a difference between a few degrees inside or outside of a womb?

         replyreport
   3. 67

      JKSophieposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      From the union of the man's sperm cell with the woman's egg cell, that's the start of life. As early as 2weeks to 8weeks, the nervous system already starts to develop, and the heart follows on the 2nd month of pregnancy.  Bottom line is, a fetus is something living within the pregnant body of it's mother, awaiting to be born.  Life is God's own breath encased in our human body, so we never had the right to take it away.  If we do not have any value to God, He would not create us, in the first place.  Our worth is determined by the contributions we marked on every person we meet, and every decisions we make. I guess it's still best to prevent getting pregnant or get someone pregnant if you're not ready than getting to that situation where you'll be tempted to abort it.

      replyreport
   4. 66

      Make Moneyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I do not agree with abortion but ...  Many Catholics in the US seem to think that banning abortion is the only issue of every election.  Seeing McCain and Palin both "claim" they are pro-life I feel that voting with only one issue in mind could get the US and the world into some deep do do.  And by the way, I am Catholic.  I do not think that Plan Parenthood should be the only resource for young unwed pregnant girls.  There is a moral issue involved here and young women should be taught all the facts before they make up their mind.  They do not get all the facts from Plan Parenthood.
      
      Mike

      replyreport
      1. 81

         LondonGirlposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Why is all this about girls and women? Do men not have any responsibility here?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Sure the man has a responsibility too, if he and her agree to the abortion, then he should also have to pay for it.  If either disagree on what to do, the other will still have to do his/her part, but how often does this happen? 
            
            He wants her to abort, she says no...he wont help take care of the kid, so she is left with a lifetime of hardships even though it takes two to tango.
            
            She want to abort, he says no...suddenly she is an aweful person. In some cases he will take her to court.
            
            There is still a double standard; women are still treated differently from men.  Had a man ever been in the position to know what it is like to be pregnant or menstrate or any other inconvenience that comes with being female, well...I am sure that men would change thier tune.
            
            But men still somehow feel like they can know what is right for a women to do. 
            
            Too much talk about the rights of an unborn baby that doesn't even have a birth certifercate and not enough about the one that does have a life.  Certainly people shouldn't be having sex if they cannot accept the consequences for thier actions but those are issues that should be left to the ones in that position.
            
            It doesn't effect anyone but the ones involved and those involved do not include the government, any religous organization or strangers for that matter.  An unborn babies brain isn't even developed yet and it has to have a brain to have a life. 
            
            I am againts late term abortions because if the baby were born at that time it could survive.  I am not agaits early first trimester abortions because if the baby were born at that time, it would not survive therefore in my mind (not neccesarilly agreeing with my emotions) it is not a life. 
            
            Plus, not to be so graphic, when a women miscarries in the first two-three months, nothing special needs to be done, she has a "period", that's it.  Fact: women miscarry all the time and do not know it.  Everytime a women has a period she is essentially expelling a life that could have been...does that make her a killer?
            
            So the point with that was, they both could have been but are not whether by choice or nature, the "baby" wouldn't, couldn't ever know, it will not feel anything, it's feelings will not be hurt which in the way we live today, is so much better than giving it a life that is destined to include all of the above.
            
            Don't overtune Roe Vs. Wade, doing so is a disaster waiting to happen and if you are one of those who believe that it is not right by God to do so, then it is not the baby who will suffer the consequence, it will always be the one who already has a life so let the choice be the mothers.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yeh, exactly.
         
         If people vote with one issue in mind (abortion), then all a major party has to do is make sure their platform is pro-life and cater to the pro-life base and they will be 100% guaranteed to get that blocs vote.
         
         You could have fascists come to power by catering to right wing pro-lifers/evangelicals/conservative jews/conservative catholics.
         
         Oh crap, that's what happened with George Bush and that's what's happening right now with McCain-Palin. 
         
         The ideologues make the unfortunate assumption that people who are "pro-life" and against abortion (even in all it's forms), are necessarily morally upright people and wouldn't want to take peoples' freedoms away.
         
         They assume wrong, at their expense, and at the expense of their fellow countrymen.

         replyreport
         1. 63

            Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly the same way
            
            You could have fascists(communists) come to power by catering to left wing poverty fighters etc.
            
            Does not really matter, as long as you cater to the majority burning moral issue
            
            Interesting avatar - but I liked your real pic better

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

               True enough about the fascist(communists) coming to power by catering to poverty.
               
               That is how Hitler primarily came to power.
               
               Yeh, I like my real pic better too.  Just trying some new things .

               replyreport
      3. 67

         SparklingJewelposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         exactly mike, a true choice cannot be made without all perspectives of the facts. there are enough women and families out there that have been harmed by abortion, physically and emotionally, to prove there is more to the abortion issue than just the side of planned parenthood's.
         
         I did a short presentation reflecting 15 printed pages of the mainstream scientific research that has been done since the legalization of abortion in the US, that shows that abortion has had significant  societal and family impact, let alone the personal impact on the women involved.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            livelongerposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sure. But the banning of abortion would also have a significant societal and family impact (of a different sort). No one is arguing that abortion is without its costs, but it's worth keeping in mind that illegal abortion also has a tremendous set of dangers and costs, which are all borne by women.
            
            This is why this issue really doesn't have any hope of consensus.

            replyreport
   5. 68

      Anamika Sposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Well, I don't know.  I am against any sort of violence. I don't think anyone has the right to kill anybody.
      
      But when it comes to abortion, I think a child with problems like eye sight, heart problems or similar stuff is better not born. The same applies to the child of a rape victim. And regarding the rest, I think a person who does not wish to take the responsibility of a child should not indulge in unprotected sex at all. Even if it had happened by mistakes there are stuff like ipill, right?

      replyreport
      1. 83

         WHoArtNowposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         So you don't think I have the right to protect my partner and 3 yr old daughter in our home? If I had to kill to protect them I would

         replyreport
      2. 71

         Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         You said, " I think a child with problems like eye sight, heart problems or similar stuff is better not born". What you kill that unborn child who wasn't going to be born as perfect as you? Are you God? Are you the Creator of life? If so why don't you create a human being out of dirt and God says, "Get your own dirt".
         
         I obviously don't agree with your rationale here but I do agree that "a perrson who does not wish to take the responsibility of a child should not indulge in unprotected sex at all". The problem is nobody WANTS to take responsibility because they probably think "what's the point I'm only accountable to myself, I'm my own god, I'm not morally accountable to the God who created me therefore so what?"
         
         And in the beginning you said "i don't think anyone has the right to kill anybody". Well if you really believe that then you can't say a child with problems is better off not being born because those who take the next step in that logic and kill their unborn baby don't have the right according to your logic. By the way if you don't think there's medical, scientific and biological evidence proving that the unborn baby is a SEPARATE ENTITY (BODY) from the mother, and that unborn baby has a DIFFERENT bloodtype than her mother, you should go read a hub I wrote about this.
         
         The bottom line: if the unborn is a separate body than the mother, and it is, then abortion is murder whether people want to hear (or read) that or not. The facts are the facts.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            God doesn't make decisions, people do.  That is the bottom line, and if humans can clone sheeps then... 
            
            By this persons statement, I wouldn't conclude or assume she thinks she is better than the child with problems, more like...if she/he already knows that troubles or problems comes with these things, why make them suseptable to our "wicked" ways?   
            
            I know that Christianity is a very faith based belief but even with that, God still does not make decions, people do.
            
            If an unborn baby cannot make a choice, what rights does it have?

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

               Sandra you said, "If an unborn baby cannot make a choice, what rights does it have?"
               
               Sandra HOW do you the unborn baby cannot make a choice? What about breathing? Don't believe make a conscience choice to breathe? Didn't you know people can choose to hold their breath? So why couldn't a baby do that as well? They make a choise to kick in the womb and leap around so why do you think an unborn baby can't make a choice?
               
               That is an ASSUMPTION your making on the unborn baby's life. Some people (perhaps many) say that the U.S. went to war based on an ASSUMPTION.
               
               So Sandra how many more unborn babies have to die on our ASSUMPTIONS??
               
               Would you like to die on some else's ASSUMPTION of what you can and can't do?
               
               So why subject an unborn baby to that standard?

               replyreport
   6. 67

      Valentine Logarposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Certainly a "unborn baby" is a human life.  However, this requires qualification.  At what stage of fetal development is it a "baby" capable of sustaining life independently outside of the womb.  That is the point that the unborn must be valued as independent and of equal value as the mother that is sustaining its development.  Even then given the choice between the fully developed woman and the not fully developed fetal life I will always choose the woman in the case of a threat to the mothers life.
      
      What gives human life worth and value?  Intellect and the capacity to reason, to learn.
      
      Since this question is clearly only asked in the context of pro-life or pro-choice, yes there are justifiable reasons for abortion to remain legal and available.  The decision can only be made by the pregnant woman who must bear the burden of a pregnancy and its eventual outcome on her body and her life.  No one has the capacity or the right to determine this for her.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for contributing to this forum I appreciate it. With that said I disagree with you when you said, "The decision can only be made by the pregnant woman who must bear the burden of a pregnancy and its eventual outcome on her body and her life.  No one has the capacity or the right to determine this for her."
         
         God her Creator (and ours) has the capacity and right to determine the outcome of the life inside her body.
         
         Only the Creator who makes life has the right to take life. And since NO HUMAN can create themselves or another human being FROM SCRATCH (from nothing) then no human is COMPLETELY sovereign over their own body or the body that is in their care, whether it's an elderly person, handicapped person or unborn baby.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Valentine Logarposted 15 years agoin reply to this

            I will have to respectfully disagree with you......no one is sovereign over a womans body but that woman.  A man and a woman when they lie down together make a pregnancy.  A woman through her agreement sustains a pregnancy. 
            
            Nothing more and nothing less.  Belief in God, any God is voluntary and cannot be demanded or enforced.  Your belief system can not be demanded.  Your belief system cannot be allowed to be enforced upon another living, breathing, thinking human person without their voluntary acceptance of that system.  You may not create laws that demand enforcement of those systems of belief. 
            
            I own my body.  Through my intellect I protect my body.  However, if the unthinkable were to happen I would make the best decision for me at the time.  This has nothing to do with any system of Belief in any God.  It has to do with a system of absolute knowledge of what is best for me, for my life, for my living breathing children, for my body, for my mind, and for my spiritual health.  No other person has the right to make this choice for me.  No other person has the knowledge of my personal situation and thus the ability to make a good decision for me.
            
            On the other side of this argument.  No woman or woman child should ever be forced to bear the burden of a pregnancy due to incest, rape, or other violence.  Any society that demands this over her is not a society or moral high ground.

            replyreport
   7. 67

      SparklingJewelposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Our worth and value comes from the fact that our soul, in her evolution, needs to have a human body to evolve and experience God in manifestation. The essence of God Energy in mater form, especially in a human being, is the highest level of consciousness evolved at this point in time.
      
      A soul has the right to have the opportunity to evolve toward her goal of Oneness with God the Universal Creator. That essence of God in the single cell produced from the egg and sperm holds within it that God Energy of Life. That essence is sacred and to be nurtured and cared for.

      replyreport
2. 83

   WHoArtNowposted 15 years ago

   This is the kind of post that could start some arguments, but here's my 2c anyway!
   
   Humans gain "worth and value" by the way they lead there life, being un-selfish, honest and caring gives us the uniqueness in the world to be "worth" more.
   
   Its not right to take an innocent life, in all the scenarios I can think of, they would not be innocent!   
   
   'In my opinion, a baby is not alive until its not longer dependant on its mother. So birth. That's just me and I know everyone shares different views and opinions.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      TravelMonkeyposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I would agree with you WHoArtNow, although, at what age would you deem a child no longer dependant for its mother?
      
      I'll look forward to this debate.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Whoartnow --- You said, 'This is the kind of post that could start some arguments..." It is meant to start getting people to think and if they have to argue in order to have their minds joilted into thought then so be it!
      
      I also agree with what TravelMonkey asked you to. But I was just add that wouldn't a handicapped adult aged child still be dependent on his/her mother? Are you going to seriously say that that person isn't alive? Would you argue for the aborting (killing) of all fully aged mentally challenged kids who are still dependent on their mother? Are they alive? If not why not have the option of stuffing them out (aka abortion)? That's what Darwin's atheistic worldview taught. Whoartnow--- you can't logically support your argument if you're not willing to go all the way with it. Think about it...

      replyreport
3. 60

   vitaebposted 15 years ago

   If you recognize that you are a soul temporarily in human form expressing Divine Will, then you would recognize that all of life is sacred  - from the stars in the firmament to the worms and insects beneath your feet, the rocks, the trees, all plants...and yes, a human embryo. Knowing this, we realize we are taking life in everything we do. Every moment is a moment of sacred decision. No one can avoid the moral issue. Is it reasonable to ask government to dictate how we make our choices? Who should decide for you what you should eat, what insects you should destroy, what form of a life you should protect? Asking government to choose, we avoid our own sacred responsibility. So, who am I to dictate what another being should choose regarding her pregancy. I have no right to take away her sacred responsibility.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Vitaeb ----- you said, "Asking government to choose, we avoid our own sacred responsibility. So, who am I to dictate what another being should choose regarding her pregancy. I have no right to take away her sacred responsibility." Vita, do you personally believe life is sacred? If so don't you believe government should be in place to protect life? The law dictates to thieves there's a penalty for stealing and to murderers that there's a penalty for stealing. Why shouldn't the law tell mothers that once they choose (in most of the cases) to get pregnant they are responsible to protect that life by not purposely drinking poison that would kill their baby? Or having an abortion that would also kill their baby?
      
      Do you not agree that yes all human beings have a RESPONSIBILITY to treat life as sacred but just like the people behind 9/11 some people choose to deny their responsibilities? And do you not further agree that therefore the gov't should step in and carry out the justice the law of the land demands?

      replyreport
4. 57

   Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

   Dontthinkaboutitjustdoasyouretold is not really interested in a discussion - he just likes to preach
   
   He already has all the answers.
   
   vitaeb - I like your response though.
   
   What say ye? :lol:lol:lol:

   replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   There is an old demonstration in Group Dynamics Class.
   So many students role-play people in a life boat, captain, millionare couple, banker, movie star some average and a man wounded in the ship sinking. Need to throw one overboard to survive, which will it be? 100% of the time it is the wounded guy.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      And there's the old joke about passengers on a plane that is having engine trouble and about to go down. There are three passengers--Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and a hippie--and only one parachute. Henry Kissinger says, "I should get the parachute because I'm the smartest man in the world. Dick Nixon says, no Henry, I should be saved because I'm president of the most powerful country in the world. With that, Kissinger grabbed what he thought was the chute and jumped out of the plane. Whereupon, the hippie said, "The smartest man in the world just jumped with my backpack!
      
      A philosophy professor I once had, Henry Alonzo Meyers, said that the only answer to the question of equality is that all are equal in ultimate value but not identical. (Women and men, black and white are equal but not identical.) This is true because it would be impossible to get agreement on the most important qualities for determining who is the "most equal." For example how would you rank the importance of intelligence, kindness, artistic ability, strength, musical genius, honesty, religious beliefs, and so forth for determining who is the best person?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Shadesbreathposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Well, generally, the answer humans seem to come up with most, albeit perhaps not consciously, is that those factors are prioritized in the order that most accurately fits themselves.
         
         People when pressed in any significant way by the forces of life find themselves of the attitude Orwell described so well in Animal Farm when one of his pigs remarked, "Everyone is equal, just some of us are more equal than others."

         replyreport
6. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   a fetus is a fetus, a baby is a baby, an egg is an egg (zygote is a zygote). 
   
   abortion is abortion and murder is murder, death is to die as life is to be born....
   
   

   replyreport
7. 59

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

   Mr. Mark Knowles in his comments says that a 15 year old girl will fetch more than a 90 year old woman in a slave auction. Please state whether such slave auction exists anywhere in this world. Wherever it is, it should be prevented.

   replyreport
8. 77

   Shadesbreathposted 15 years ago

   I don't believe the lives of rapists, serial killers and child molestors are sacred and I will gladly shoot one if it comes into my house (yes, I said "it").  I also have no problem shooting a robber who comes into my house, even if he is just trying to steal for his family. He could have knocked on the door and asked.  There are consequences to our actions, and if we put ourselves in jeopardy, well, that's how it goes.  I don't feel bad. 
   
   Beyond that, this thread is just an obvious attempt to start up the abortion debate, and there's no point in weighing in on either of the two nauseatingly over argued sides of this argument because it is never going to be settled due to the fact that one side has the commandments and approvals of God, Gods or other magical entities supporting them. 
   
   Being merely mortal, there is no way to argue with divine or magical ordinance or with people who believe they have such mandate, so there is no argument to be had inasmuch as that to have an argument, there has to be the possibility of one side moving toward the other's position. 
   
   The only possible movement in a circumstance like this is that people like myself or Mark Knowles are converted to some faith or another, which seems unlikely barring the appearance of any tangible manifestation by any of the various divine or magical entities described by various religions or its/their minions (and which does not include pointing out how vast or complex the universe is, as that "evidence" is tired and already addressed with equally nauseating repetition through the last few centuries in both print and the Internet).

   replyreport
   1. 83

      WHoArtNowposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Lucky you, we can't have guns in England so I'd have to use whatever was nearby! I'd rater avoid the A word, its too much hassle...

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Zarm Nefilinposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Very wisely said and well put.
      
      I think that about sums things up.
      
      I am an atheistic agnostic, I wouldn't discount all forms of "God(s)" but I would not believe something based on circular testimonies and faith whose stakes are so high, and that is because I do not let fear rule my life when it comes to abstract concepts such as "God" or "spirit" or w/e.
      
      It's also hard to argue -as you very astutely pointed out- with people who have an ontologically based ideological claim that they cannot budge from.  What exactly is the point of "debate" when the other side comes to the table unwilling to move in any direction at all?  They cannot move in any direction as their dogmatic presumptions disallow them to, for fear of "eternal hellfire".  Divine ordnance and magical ordnance won't allow them to budge so the "abortion" debate is about as pointless as the "homosexual" debate.  The principle of double effect is a thinly veiled piece of sophistry with which they use to prop up the absolutes they allege to be the pillars of that "natural law" crap they are always talking about.
      
      The "dogmatists" cherrypick what they want to believe just as much as the alleged "liberals" do, so it's all rather pointless and non-debatable.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Thinkaboutit77posted 15 years agoin reply to this

         You seem like an honest skeptic and I appreciate that. But you said, "I am an atheistic agnostic, I wouldn't discount all forms of "God(s)" but I would not believe something based on circular testimonies and faith whose stakes are so high, and that is because I do not let fear rule my life when it comes to abstract concepts such as "God" or "spirit" or w/e."
         
         What stood out to me was "I do not let fear rule my life..."
         
         On the contrary I believe you do or you wouldn't still be alive today. How can I say that? Because fear is needed for our very survival. Fear keeps us safe in many cases, it's a reaction that prevents us from unecessary harm.
         
         Fear keeps people from getting to close to a fire, a bomb, a gunman, a tornado etc.
         
         So we need fear and that's why God our Craetor gave us an element of fear as our make up and we can be grateful to Him for that.
         
         If you are open to truth, go to my hubpage, and email me your email address and I will send you a power point slide of a class I taught to teenagers about 5 proofs to know that the Biblical/Christian concept of God is the only true and logical one.
         
         So I think you're agnostic becasue you don't know which concept of God is the truth but if you are open to truth I will send you those slides. Just email me.
         
         
         And anyone else in here who wants those power point slides just contact me.

         replyreport
9. 60

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   "For example how would you rank the importance of intelligence, kindness, artistic ability, strength, musical genius, honesty, religious beliefs, and so forth for determining who is the best person?" Why do we need a best person? Only in terms of objectives to be accomplished. We need the best firemen and not everyone can do it. Without objectives, everyone has a similar body and mind but not identical. The best is usually used as a means to  unequal entitlement it seems to me.

   replyreport
   1. 66

      Ralph Deedsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. We don't. That was my professor's point!

      replyreport
10. 59

    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

    I dont think Hitler came to power because of poerty in Germany. Simply there is no mention of poverty in Germany before Hitler. Only unemployment, discontent on the outcome of Ist World War, etc. The Treaty of Versailles made him so mad against his opponents. The Treaty snatched away portions of Germany's lands, place impractical conditions on Germany such that no self respecting country can accept. Standing in his position, he seems right. Only his actions such as elimination of Jews, invasion of Russia proved him costly. Identifying himself with racial groups and Muslim countries paved his way to hell.  He has no right to take the lives of millions of people inside and outside Germany.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       dingdongposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Poetry or Poverty..?

       replyreport
       1. 59

          VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years agoin reply to this

             VERY SORRY.   It is poverty (not poetry). Regret for my mistake.

          replyreport
11. 63

    Mishaposted 15 years ago

    Another excellent analysis showing even deeper knowledge of post WWI European history!
    
    *sarcasm smiley*

    replyreport
12. 60

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Simply there is no mention of poverty in Germany before Hitler." I remember an Earnest Hemmingway story about Germany in the 30's, where they ate at a resturaunt in one town, say for twenty dollars, and where that meal would double in price to $40 as they were walking out the door, and they would race to the next town by car, to get their next meal for $20 before the news of the inflationary price rise of $40 got there. Called hyper-inflation.

    replyreport
13. 60

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "Is the unborn baby a human life? If it is, why is it right to take it's life?" It is human and it is life. But it is not my life. If it were my life, I would still be in the womb. My life is outside the womb. Like some people should not have animals, some people should not have kids.

    replyreport
14. 57

    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    Dontthinkaboutitjustliveinfear -
    
    I feel hurt.
    
    You didn't read my link and are not interested in learning about evolution.
    
    I mean - you didn't even answer me last time.
    
    Guess you already have all the answers you need. Fear
    
    How very christian of you.

    replyreport
15. 67

    SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

    It could be helpful to take this debate out of the political realm...like into family or health. For until we get some broader perspective on the issue, its not going to change. Because what we are looking at is the very essence of life here, a belief in the soul. The very foundation on which we base our lives. And our lives are spiritual and physical, let alone emotional and mental.
    
    I just stuck an excerpt of a perspective on post abortion and how it affects women in the health forum. Take a look at it. I think it has a more common ground component that would be helpful to get people moving in the most important direction of what to work together on, instead of fighting about the foundation of life, which may never (for some) or ultimately be decided because egos get in the way.

    replyreport
16. 57

    Mark Knowlesposted 15 years ago

    SJ please. That is a health issue not a political issue. Please stay on topic in future posts.
    
    Your ego is showing again.

    replyreport
17. 60

    knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

    "there are enough women and families out there that have been harmed by abortion," How many children are starving and in ill health because the family has too many kids and no money?
    Would guess it is in the millions.

    replyreport
    1. 57

       Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

       Yes, but SJ has decided abortion is wrong and is quite happy to ignore all the issues that arose when it was illegal, does not think a woman should be allowed to make the choice and thinks that there are no issues with unwanted children.
       
       All life is sacred to her - unless it is taken by a god-fearing American soldier fighting god's war. In which case - that is fine.

       replyreport
18. 67

    SparklingJewelposted 15 years ago

    The longest term goal needs to be to reach the highest moral ground, and that will only be when we as the entire race of humanity has recognized the sanctity of the soul's right to the opportunity of life to fulfill their purpose for being. The soul has that opportunity from the moment of conception when the physical body begins to be created and integrates with that incoming soul.
    
    another long term goal is to teach our selves and our children to be respectful and accountable for our own creative power and how to create a lifestyle consciousness of spiritual, mental, emotional and physical health that gives us the ability to take greataer self responsibility by making better choices for ourselves, BEFORE, the act of sex is even considered.
    
    
    That said. The first order of business when there is an imminent situation, is to make it immediately known that any female no matter what age, race or in what country has the access to all perspectives and knowledge through counseling and written or other format, and is protected from any kind of coercion or any degree of fear, by other people involved in the situation, the father or family, etc., and is offered unconditional support from someone or other to carry out whatever decision she eventually decides.  For then and only then, will she be free to make a fully informed individual decision.
    
    She needs to know and have full support to make whatever decision she wants, not a decision made out of worries or fears. She needs to know she has all alternatives. Anything less is not a true choice.

    replyreport