Seems off the bat like extinguishing life by killing a fetus is more about killing than not extinguishing that life. One twisted argument you got for yourself there.
Well, y’see, you’ve just made my point. Conservatives believe that death is the correct consequence for certain crimes. I believe state-administered death is an inappropriate consequence for any crime. Conservatives believe forced childbirth is an appropriate consequence for sexual intercourse. I believe childbirth is a matter of choice, not a consequence to be endured because the birth control didn’t work. Conservatives believe blowing Iraq back into the stone age is appropriate … well, God alone knows why they think that’s appropriate, because Iraq certainly didn’t “mess with us,” so I can’t understand why all of those people deserved to be punished.
I, too, place a high value on taking personal responsibility. Most liberals do. But we also understand that our fellow humans, flawed as they are, are still humans, not dogs to be “put down” because they bit somebody or whelped because they jumped the fence.
What Der Trihs meant was not that childbirth per se humiliates women and causes them harm, but rather forcing them to bear children when it endangers their health or when they are pregnant from incest or other sexual assault.
I still say it all gets back to religion. For the overwhelming majority of Americans, right and wrong are determined by an external set of regulations handed down by God, not by an internal moral code that is intrinsically valuable. Religious people cannot even conceptualize moral values absent an external God to enforce them.
Whereas you appear to have **no ** point, valid or otherwise. Yes, women’s bodies are designed to bear children. They are also (like all human bodies) designed to walk, run, climb, jump, carry, and throw. That doesn’t mean that no harm can come to a body doing these things.
All of which is far afield of the point of this thread anyway. Do you have anything to add to the discussion at hand?
In case it wasn’t clear, I wasn’t arguing in favor of the viewpoint I was describing, just showing how it could consistently encompass “pro-life, pro-war, and pro-death penalty” opinions. (And in so doing I was kinda going along with you, though not completely.)
I don’t think it’s fair to claim that all conservatives believe these things, but they are more characteristic of the conservative point(s) of view than of the liberal.
A conservative would respond to this by saying that it is because our fellow humans are humans and not dogs that they are expected to anticipate the consequences of their actions, have a moral sense, and be held responsible for themselves. (And then a liberal might respond to that by pointing out that the issue is how we treat people when they do make mistakes. And then…)
Do you have any support for this? I’ve also heard the opposite claim: that religious people who are good and decent would still be basically good and decent without religion, just because it’s their nature.
Anyway, I’m not at all sure it’s religion that’s the root cause. I think it’s equally likely that a judgmental attitude (or lack thereof) is the cause of a person adopting a judgmental (or merciful) religion or emphasizing the judgmental (or mericful) elements in one’s religion. Or maybe they both reinforce one another, along with other influences like one’s inherent personality and the attitudes of one’s parents.
Yes, my support is the conversations I have every single day of my life with people who claim to attend church more than once a month. Is there a study or, even better, a hyperlink I can point you to? Of course not. But try this experiment: If you are a religious person, try spending one entire day being a good person with no religious basis whatsoever. That’s how I spend my life.
There’s a difference between being judgemental and just being an asshole. I’m just an asshole. I lost my judgementalism when I lost my religious faith.
Actually, I do remember seeing the occasional study claiming that religious people are less moral than the non religious; less honest, less charitable and so on. That’s probably why you seldom see or hear of such studies. I can’t find a link to that, but here’s one to a story about a study claiming it’s bad for society : Link
If you kill someone in self defense it is neither murder nor a sin.
Some Christians are pacifists, and that is an admirable position, but it is not required by the religion. Just like a vow of poverty is admirable, worthy of respect perhaps, but not required by all followers.
If I strike you in the side of the head, doesn’t Christianity tell you to forgive me and present the other side of your head for a second blow? Aren’t you then supposed to likewise forgive the next seven times seventy such offenses?
Seconding ululate.
Also, allowing for self defence opens up for some pretty tricky definitions. As I’ve said before, if there is an “omnigod”, all you have to do is make yourself worthy of reward, supposedly through good deeds, belief and love. If anyone tries to kill you in the meantime, you shouldn’t have to do anything about it. If you truly deserve paradise, how can god keep you out of it just because someone killed you and you didn’t kill them back?
[QUOTE=DianaG]
<snippity-snip>
That’s true, but in my opinon, it’s somewhat short-sighted. To me, the fundamental question isn’t so much “Does anyone deserve the death penalty?” as “Should the government have the right to kill its citizens?” To me, that answer should be, emphatically, no.
<snippity-snip>
QUOTE]
Either way, the answer, to me, is no.
Crap, my internet connection was messed up for two days and last I saw this thread, it was at the bottom of the page. I missed a lot.
The short answer is that it doesn’t. Some christians use the following to say that it does though…
There’s one or two others along the same lines, basically talking about God knowing someone before they were born. As to if that means the bible says life begins at conception is debatable but those are what most christians mean when they claim the bible says that ‘life begins at conception’.
This does not represent my opinion, was just finding something to answer the question that was given.
Then again, though: “And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
Exodus 21:22-25. The mother qualifies for “eye for an eye” status, but the unborn child doesn’t. Kill the mother and you’re put to death; kill a fetus and, um, there’s maybe a fine, if that’s what the father wants, so long as the judges don’t think he’s asking for too much.
Notice it doesn’t say at what stage in the womb, it could well mean at 81/2 or 9 months. Surely it wasn’t yet formed untill it had a brain ,arms,legs and you could see it was a fully formed person. Like the egg though fertile isn’t yet a chicken.
I noticed. Really I just pulled those to answer the question of what the bible has to say about it, whether what it has to say is helpful to the conversation I leave to the readers discretion.
