I’ll ask again: I see nothing wrong with punishing a kidnapper by locking him in a small room, and I’m also in favor of forcing armed robbers to pay fines. Does that likewise invite your scorn?
It’s different from killing them, isn’t it? I’m a bit unclear on the question.
/me sings “If I only had a brain”.
Rubbish. If I happen to be in possession of a gun and someone’s about to split me from neck to crotch with a double-handed axe, my willingness to shoot him has no more to do with “omniscience” than would my unwillingness to use that same gun to shoot an innocent passer by.
When come back, bring argument.
Immediate self-defense is a gimme, and has nothing to do with war or the death penalty, so do try to stay on topic.
FTR, I’m *not * a believer in the sanctity of life. I’m just pointing out that the word “sacred” actually means something, and anyone who claims to believe that life is sacred should be against war in general, and the death penalty in any instance.
Well, yes and no.
Kidnapping is wrong. You don’t want to be kidnapped. You endorse laws that criminalize kidnapping. You’d go so far as to say you have the right to not get kidnapped. And what do you think we should do with a kidnapper? Use force, or the threat of force, to lock him in a small room.
Armed robbery is wrong. You don’t want to be robbed at gunpoint. You endorse laws that criminalize armed robbery. You’d go so far as to say you have the right to not get robbed at gunpoint. And what do you think we should do with an armed robber? Well, using armed men to make him pay a fine.
Murder is wrong. You don’t want to be murdered. You endorse laws that criminalize murder. You’d go so far as to say you have the right not to get murdered. And what do you think we should do with a murderer? “Execute him” would seem to parallel the other two answers.
I think the point being made and that was made in the other thread, was that it’s not hypocritical to believe a war is necessary for self defense and abortion is wrong.
Should we have not gone into WWII because civilians might be killed? If my wife decides not to have an abortion but kills the man who breaks into our house and threatens her, does she hold life less sacred?
Concerning the war in Iraq I feel that it is completely unjustified and is not part of fighting a war against global terror. It’s not self defense to invade a country that has not attacked you, but that’s another argument.
If I consider all life sacred I still have to choose when faced with a deadly threat to me or my loved ones. Do I defend them and possibly have to kill in the process or do I allow them or myself to be killed. I’m not a hypocrite if I choose to defend myself.
If people truly see embryos as people then stem cell research becomes sacrificing some people to benefit. I think pro life folks might even see that as acceptable in some cases of sacrificing for the greater good. A war fought in self defense might be that. They just don’t see it as acceptable in the war against disease. I don’t agree but I understand the argument.
If it’s “on topic” you want, you shouldn’t have started blethering on about omniscience. Very kind of you to grant immediate self-defence, but you’re still demonstrating a willingness to blur the definition of “sacred”; you’re just, as it were, arguing about the price.
And I am glad that I live in a country with no DP, and I believe the less war the better. I maintain however that it is possible to believe you should only be put to death if you did something wrong and it’s not wrong to be conceived.
I agree with you here. I can’t understand anyone who is pro life supporting this particular war. It truly boggles my mind. I do think that anyone who speaks of the sacredness of life should see war as the last possible choice. Only if we are very sure that we or someone we have sworn to protect is unjustly attacked.
There’s no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of hypocrites about this issue. When Jerry Falwell says “Blow them all away in the name of the Lord” I want to scream. For the sake of argument though I understand how it’s possible to support a war and still be pro life. If we went to war to prevent genocide would that be pro life?
@cosmosdan: Ditto to that on all points.
Well, the Catholic Church was a pretty vocal opponent of the Iraq war. Here’s the transcript of an NPR interview with John Allen (reporter for the National Catholic Reporter), on actions taken by the Catholic Church to stop the war from happening:
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/feb/030211.edwards.html
From the transcript:
Also, as per your “infested with pedophiles” comment, in most of the cases where the childhood sexual abuse accusations recently came to light, the claim is that that most of the alledged sexual abuse took place in the 1960s and 70s. So if the Catholic Church was ever “infested with pedophiles”, it was during the time period they protested the Vietnam War.
I may feel, as the killing of innocents is accidental, that their killing is also unavoidable.
Well, that’s the tricky thing, isn’t it; evaluating how likely it is that person (or country) is going to kill you. Obviously if they’re you’re best friends, it’s unlikely, and if they’re holding a gun to your head demanding money it’s pretty clear it’s going to happen. Anything between that is up to the evaluator.
I’d like to point out these aren’t actually my viewpoints, just viewpoints under which all those different views would be consistent. There are many that would consider any hardship that woman has to go through to be minor (or at the least lesser) compared to the alternative; the destruction of life.
First, I said “Pedophiles and their apologists”. That includes the pedophiles, those who ignored or covered up what they did, and those who tried to downpedal the scandal when it broke. That includes much of the Church, including the Pope. As well, data on this from something called catholicleague.org can be safely dismissed as biased; would you trust data from shootthepope.org ? I mean :
Typical Christian persecution complex; unless everyone else is their slave, they regard themselves as persecuted.
Did the threaten to excommunicate people over it, or the death penalty, like they do abortion ? Nope, last I heard. Did they oppose Bush’s rellection, or push hard for him ? The latter.
Misogynists, in other words. “Let the bitch suffer !”
Uhm, what? What haven’t I made clear? For them, life is the important thing; all else pales in comparison. It’s not a case of denigrating the right of women to lead happy lives, it’s a case of putting life itself way, way higer above that.
In other words, women have less value than a few cells. Less than a man, less than a dog, less than a rat, less than a spot of mold on the wall. Misogyny.
In general, I am very pro-life. I do not believe that abortion should be so easy to get. I would advocate a policy that allowed abortion only when the life of the mother or child was in danger. Most unwanted pregnancies could be avoided simply by choosing not to have sex. (before anyone starts in about rape,incest etc…make note that I said most and in general. I don’t want to argue semantics.)
I am also pro-death penalty. The crimes I would view as punishable by DP are murder, rape and kidnapping. People that commit these acts have proved themselves to be a danger to society and have given up their right to be part of the human race. That being said, I realize that our current justice system does an imperfect job and DP should be reserved for cases with no question of guilt.
I am anti-war. Partially by nature, I’m a very peaceful person. Partially by religion, I am a wiccan and our first rule is do no harm. I do understand that sometimes war is the last option, but it should always be used as such and only undertaken when all other options are exahausted.
Hope that answers the OP as to why someone can hold those views that you view as being opposites.
Not so. You’re putting your viewpoint onto them. Regardless of what you, or I, think, and even regardless of what the truth is, they truly believe those few cells are a human life, and so on par with all humans. This is not mysogynistic.
Bollocks. Complete and utter bollocks. Blethering on about “value” to fudge away from the point that a woman’s right to this, that and the other thing might not necessarily mean that she had the right to take away the life from the thing inside her. Not for the sake of the cells itself but for what it would become. It’s not the fact that it’s currently a few cells but the fact that it will become a helpless human being inconveniently dependent upon her that causes her to want to be rid of it. Spot of mold on the wall indeed!
If pro-lifers really though that “women have less value than… a rat” they would kill women to preserve the life of rats. What incomparable tripe you spout.
That’s outright misanthropic; if a few cells are human, then a human life is worth no more than a few cells. No wonder so many are pro war; to someone like that, killing thousands of people is no different than tossing a Petri dish into a fire.
Thing is the right word; they value her less than a thing.
They probably would, if they cared about rats. Since when have “pro-lifers” shown anything but utter contempt for the lives and health of women ?