The Alabama conundrum

columbus · May 20, 2019

Enoch07 said:
Because murderers take lives. Therefore they should be taken out of the equation.

The two presidents Bush started a bunch of wars that took zillions of lives.

Do you think that they are murderers and should be held to account? "Taken out of the equation"?

As far as I can see, so-called "Prolifers" are fine with killing. They revel in it. As long as it's in support of their capitalistic Christian ideology, and paid for by the taxpayers. Except, of course, when the tax money supports funding for medical care, housing, nutrition, and stuff like that. As long as they're paying to bomb some middle east country, or execute some murderous drug addict, or something, they're totally Pro-Death.

Unfortunately, for the human race, that's how Christian culture has been for centuries.
Tom

Enoch07 · May 20, 2019

columbus said:
The two presidents Bush started a bunch of wars that took zillions of lives.

War is not murder.

columbus said:
Do you think that they are murderers and should be held to account? "Taken out of the equation"?

They are not murderers.

columbus said:
Unfortunately, for the human race, that's how Christian culture has been for centuries

Yes, able to distinguish between justice (death penalty) and murder. Something the non-Christians have obviously lost the ability to do.

Just like they've lost the ability to view a fetus as viable life, yet treasure rapist/murders as valued life.

It's the secularist that have it upside down.

Lyndon · May 20, 2019

I'm against abortion, against the death penalty, and against war. At least I'm consistent!!

columbus · May 20, 2019

Enoch07 said:
Yes, able to distinguish between justice (death penalty) and murder. Something the non-Christians have obviously lost the ability to do.

Nah.
It's us True Prolifers.
We don't make subjective distinctions between different kinds of choices for death. People choosing death for other people is a bad thing, in my prolifer opinion.
I don't much care if it's a president working his base, or an irresponsible parent, or a drug dealer making money, or a big corporation trashing the environment. It's all pretty much the same to me.

People choosing death for other people.
Tom

Revoltingest · May 20, 2019

columbus said:
Nah.
It's us True Prolifers.
We don't make subjective distinctions between different kinds of choices for death. People choosing death for other people is a bad thing, in my prolifer opinion.
I don't much care if it's a president working his base, or an irresponsible parent, or a drug dealer making money, or a big corporation trashing the environment. It's all pretty much the same to me.

People choosing death for other people.
Tom

So you oppose abortion even when the result of rape?
Is it because of the idea of "consensual rape"?

Enoch07 · May 20, 2019

Lyndon said:
I'm against abortion, against the death penalty, and against war. At least I'm consistent!!

Just makes you a pacifist.

I don't like anything of these things either.

But if my wife is going to die and I have to choose between losing the wife and child or just the child. Then I'd be ok with an abortion to save my wife vs taking the risk of losing both.

I don't like war. But it is necessary to fight. Because war will come to you whether you want it or not.

And the death penalty is too lenient imo. We need to apply it to rapist/child molesters as well as murderers and stop playing around with these life sentences.

sun rise · May 20, 2019

There is a fundamental inconsistency in the "pro life" side. If you believe that abortion is murder, than a woman who hires a hit man to kill someone should be treated the same as a woman hiring a medical hit man to kill her unborn child. And a woman who uses a drug to induce an abortion is, to the consistent, murder.

Hockeycowboy · May 20, 2019

Vee said:
I'm not saying that the life of an innocent baby should be compared with the life of a criminal or that criminals deserve any kind of sympathy....

You sorta answered your own question, my sister.

Big difference between "innocent" and "guilty"!

How does Jehovah feel about it? The Mosaic Law protected the unborn, yet capital punishment existed for some crimes.

Ellen Brown · May 20, 2019

Vee said:
Alabama has been on the news a lot, with regards to a new law, making all kinds of abortions illegal.
If I understood this right, they are defending the sanctity of human life.
Personally, I agree that the human life is precious and needs to be valued since the moment it starts, but if they value life so much, how come that state still has the death penalty?
I'm not saying that the life of an innocent baby should be compared with the life of a criminal or that criminals deserve any kind of sympathy, but normally when people defend the sanctity of human life, that applies to all humans, no?

Those things are done by those who believe they are Gods.

Epic Beard Man · May 20, 2019

Father Heathen said:
The baby serves as a mere prop in their sanctimonious posturing.

Yup

Lyndon · May 20, 2019

Being anti abortion, I favour a massive investment and funding for encouraging women to carry their babies to full term, not a total ban on abortion.

Mindmaster · May 20, 2019

Vee said:
Alabama has been on the news a lot, with regards to a new law, making all kinds of abortions illegal.
If I understood this right, they are defending the sanctity of human life.
Personally, I agree that the human life is precious and needs to be valued since the moment it starts, but if they value life so much, how come that state still has the death penalty?
I'm not saying that the life of an innocent baby should be compared with the life of a criminal or that criminals deserve any kind of sympathy, but normally when people defend the sanctity of human life, that applies to all humans, no?

If you think that's bad - killing a pregnant mother is a double homicide, but she can kill the baby at will and it doesn't count. Something I've always found pretty damn confusing...

Anyway, in your example it's simply conflating two completely unrelated things -- the child is innocent, the person sentenced to death row has certainly done something excessively nasty to his humans via their own will. I fail to see where there is even a comparison.

Mindmaster · May 20, 2019

Lyndon said:
Being anti abortion, I favour a massive investment and funding for encouraging women to carry their babies to full term, not a total ban on abortion.

I'm anti-abortion and funding their babies. I'm pro-funding contraceptives for both sexes so there is no unwanted baby to deal with. This also makes more sense economically, as childbirth is expensive -- more expensive than a lifetime supply of birth control or condoms in most cases. I have no objection to preventing fertilization from ever occurring -- the baby never happens, so it's killing nothing.

Vee · May 21, 2019

Hockeycowboy said:
You sorta answered your own question, my sister.

Big difference between "innocent" and "guilty"!

How does Jehovah feel about it? The Mosaic Law protected the unborn, yet capital punishment existed for some crimes.

Yes but do we have the right to kill someone? Is it up to us to make that decision?

metis · May 21, 2019

Koldo said:
But if people that use this label to describe themselves don't make such a broad use of this term, why would you do this ?

Because life is life, and people should be aware of the fact that taking a life cuts across different boundaries. In order to make that point, I also explained it.

Koldo · May 21, 2019

metis said:
Because life is life, and people should be aware of the fact that taking a life cuts across different boundaries. In order to make that point, I also explained it.

Then choice is choice, and everyone that is pro-choice must support the ability of every single human to choose as they please regarding every possible subject, which obviously includes choosing to break the law.

...Except, of course, that it doesn't work like that because the term was never intended to be applied this way.

metis · May 21, 2019

Koldo said:
Then choice is choice, and everyone that is pro-choice must support the ability of every single human to choose as they please regarding every possible subject, which obviously includes choosing to break the law.

...Except, of course, that it doesn't work like that because the term was never intended to be applied this way.

I get the strong impression that all you want to do is to argue, and I'm really not interested in doing that.

Koldo · May 21, 2019

Vee said:
Yes but do we have the right to kill someone? Is it up to us to make that decision?

If not us, then who ?

Koldo · May 21, 2019

metis said:
I get the strong impression that all you want to do is to argue, and I'm really not interested in doing that.

I am just employing a form of reductio ad absurdum to show the problem with expanding the meaning of those labels.

Hockeycowboy · May 21, 2019

Vee said:
Yes but do we have the right to kill someone? Is it up to us to make that decision?

Not us individually, that’s for sure! But Jehovah did give His Law to Israel, and “life for life” was a guideline. It’s His view.

Now, governments have the God-given authority (Romans 13:1) to protect their citizens.

So my point was, by protecting the unborn and still enforcing capital punishment, the authorities are simply reflecting Jehovah’s POV. They are doing what He would do.

The Alabama conundrum

yawn <ignore> yawn

It's all a sick freaking joke.

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014

yawn <ignore> yawn

Pragmatic Libertarian

It's all a sick freaking joke.

The world is on fire

Witness for Jehovah

Well-Known Member

Bearded Philosopher

"Peace is the answer" quote: GOD, 2014

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Outstanding Member

aged ecumenical anthropologist

Outstanding Member

Outstanding Member

Witness for Jehovah