CrimsonWeltall Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Yeah, but abortion has nothing to do with the death penalty. Anti-abortionists who are for the death penalty usually believe that people who get the death penalty deserved it, while ZEFs do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I don't care to read the entire novel in this thread, just saying that I do not support abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Yeah, but abortion has nothing to do with the death penalty. Anti-abortionists who are for the death penalty usually believe that people who get the death penalty deserved it, while ZEFs do not. But if life is sacred and given by God--then only God should taken it away. That's the logic I've heard for abortion being wrong. And I would assume that this logic should hold true for all right-to-life issues: death penalty, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide, etc. But usually it doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I don't care to read the entire novel in this thread, just saying that I do not support abortion. The points you bring up are both factually enlightening and morally compelling. I hereby denounce my evil stance. You'd be a fantastic spokesman for the Pro-Life cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 But if life is sacred and given by God--then only God should taken it away. The god of Abraham repeatedly allows for, and encourages, killing wrongdoers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted February 19, 2004 Author Share Posted February 19, 2004 If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), ifwe have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 The god of Abraham repeatedly allows for, and encourages, killing wrongdoers. Quite true, and see also Apu's post. And, I for one, though not a Pauline scholar (nor a fan), can tell you that when Jesus proclaimed himself the "Bread of Life" (John 6:35-40) he proclaiming himself as a replacment to the Jewish law. So, if we're considering ourselves Christians--then citing OT verses are not entirely valid since JC said they were no longer valid. Pretty much, if Christians accept Jesus as the New Covanent then they are invalidating the Abrahamic covanent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 The god of Abraham repeatedly allows for, and encourages, killing wrongdoers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 youre f***in dead brando SO SAYETH EYE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 My stance on abortion: It's okay for cases of rape, incest, the child has no chance at live after birth (the brain is growing outside the skull and other various birth defects - like the story on TLC about siamese twins that shared a heart and the docs knew the baby had no chance of survival) or the mother's health is endangered. Otherwise, I am against it. After seeing my best friend's sonograms of her three girls and seeing them within hours of their birth and seeing the sonogram of my nephew and seeing him about 10-20 minutes after he was born, I just can't support it for cases other than those that I listed above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 The god of Abraham repeatedly allows for, and encourages, killing wrongdoers. ????????? I cannot think of any Scriptural occurance where the God of Abramam (and Isaac and Jacob and Moses) suggested let alone encouraged human beings conducting an actual capital punishment. The few instances that are recorded, such as the killing of Absalom, were greatly lamented in fact and were without God's sanction. Others who did acts that would seemingly call for capital punishment, such as commiting murder, what did God do? With David (killing of Uriah) God acted and there was no capital punishment. With Cain, God banished Cain but marked him so that no one would execute capital punishment on him. The rhetorical langauge in parts of the levitical code are there but no circumstances in the Scriptural accounts of those being acted upon and they served as ritual language as opposed to legal code. God may have acted here or there but not humans with God's blessing and indeed that is the point: vengence is God's, not ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 youre f***in dead brando SO SAYETH EYE When did I say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Quite true, and see also Apu's post. And, I for one, though not a Pauline scholar (nor a fan), can tell you that when Jesus proclaimed himself the "Bread of Life" (John 6:35-40) he proclaiming himself as a replacment to the Jewish law. So, if we're considering ourselves Christians--then citing OT verses are not entirely valid since JC said they were no longer valid. Pretty much, if Christians accept Jesus as the New Covanent then they are invalidating the Abrahamic covanent... I differ from you on the sanction of God for a death penalty practiced by humans in the Prime Covenant (Old Testament). I also differ that we of the Christian Covenent are free from the validity of the Prime Covenant texts. Everything Jesus said and taught and did and was operated out of the Prime Covenant. Paul makes the argument that we are free from the demands of the law but yet we operate with that being the normative guide for the faith and life of the Church. In law is also Gospel. We are obligated to keep the law but to let the law inform us under the Gospel. And as Paul points out in Romans, we as Christians are but a branch on the tree of faith - we are not the tree. And the branch doesn't make it without the tree. The John text does not make your piont for me. I think your stronger support would be in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus in rabbinc fashin and also as prophet (and as we confess, God Incarnate) at once reaffirmed and reinterpreted the law in laws that made them even more binding and yet spoke against a legalistic intepretation. I do not think I am saying this well. As for Paul, I am a great fan of Paul, a few off the wall comments here and there notwithstanding. Other than those few places, I think the great impact of his theology is very liberating. Yet others I know and respect also share your opinion on Paul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 SO SAYETH EYE When did I say that? It was in all the papers - you don't remember saying that????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 It was in all the papers - you don't remember saying that????? Yep.. right next to Frank's quote about wanting to be traded.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Yep.. right next to Frank's quote about wanting to be traded.. You are soooo banned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Yep.. right next to Frank's quote about wanting to be traded.. and both were broadcast on ESPN - I heard it - Frank asks, Mr Eye declares, next after this commercial.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 You are soooo banned HA! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwsox Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 You are soooo banned steff has a friend who will protect her.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 steff has a friend who will protect her.... Hey there is plenty of room on the banned list Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 Brando, baby, I love you, but I'm afraid to a lot of people slippery slope of choice is definitely a reality. Let's look at the timeline: 1965: Horribly enough birth control becomes available to married couples (via Griswald v. Conneticut). It begins. Note: this is stuff like the pill, not condoms, but this that actually affect hormonal cycles. 1972: The slope continued to allow UNMARRIED women to gain access to birth control in a decision I believe was Eisenstad v. Baird. 1973: Roe v. Wade I see your point, Soxy. Of course, those of us who are PRO-contreaception, ANTI-overpopulation and PRO-freedom of personal choice might not always understand that POV, but I can see its legitimacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 !". OK, that is a terrible situation, but if someone is against abortion because they believe it is killing an unborn child, how CAN he be for it in cases of rape and incest. The child isn't at fault in how he or she was conceived. How can you be against killing what you consider a child in one case but for it in another? There are certain things I can/will never understand in life. Sox fans satirizing Ron Santo's amputations and cancer is one of them. The above attitude is another. You said that you aren't a Bible freak. You also said that morning after pill is not that big of a deal in your opinion. Then how can you justify the above? HOW? A teen is molested by her Dad. Within a few days/weeks she musters up courage, seeks help and is administered a rape kit during which it is discovered that she is pregnant. How in all that's Holy can ANYBODY who isn't a conscience-free religious fanatic actually be against abortion period (let alone a chemical one) in that case or under similar cirumstaces? It wouldn't be hypocrisy on part of that politician. And even if it was.....give me that kind of hypocrisy over the truly heartless, inflexible alternative (no abortion ever!) any damn day of the week. We are bending backwards trying to understand every point of view, no matter how arbitrary and ignorant-- yes, ignorant-- as FSJ and others put it, life technically begins WAY before "conception" and nature actually has its own way of aborting more than 50% of "living separate persons", to say nothing of the fetus not being aware/not feeling pain in the early stage of pregnancy. If some (and technically I am one of them!) believe life begins at blablablabla just because they feel like believing, because their parents believed that, because the idea of abortion repulses them and/or simply because some Book tells them....you cannot stop them. You can't control thoughts. Nor should you attept to even if you could. But if they, the morality merchants, actually want to put it into LEGISLATION/CONSTITUTION, thus affecting the very lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of OTHER people.....f*** 'EM. . At some point, enough is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlliniBob72 Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 There are certain things I can/will never understand in life. Sox fans satirizing Ron Santo's amputations and cancer is one of them. The above attitude is another. You said that you aren't a Bible freak. You also said that morning after pill is not that big of a deal in your opinion. Then how can you justify the above? HOW? A teen is molested by her Dad. Within a few days/weeks she musters up courage, seeks help and is administered a rape kit during which it is discovered that she is pregnant. How in all that's Holy can ANYBODY who isn't a conscience-free religious fanatic actually be against abortion period (let alone a chemical one) in that case or under similar cirumstaces? It wouldn't be hypocrisy on part of that politician. And even if it was.....give me that kind of hypocrisy over the truly heartless, inflexible alternative (no abortion ever!) any damn day of the week. We are bending backwards trying to understand every point of view, no matter how arbitrary and ignorant-- yes, ignorant-- as FSJ and others put it, life technically begins WAY before "conception" and nature actually has its own way of aborting more than 50% of "living separate persons", to say nothing of the fetus not being aware/not feeling pain in the early stage of pregnancy. If some (and technically I am one of them!) believe life begins at blablablabla just because they feel like believing, because their parents believed that, because the idea of abortion repulses them and/or simply because some Book tells them....you cannot stop them. You can't control thoughts. Nor should you attept to even if you could. But if they, the morality merchants, actually want to put it into LEGISLATION/CONSTITUTION, thus affecting the very lives of tens if not hundreds of thousands of OTHER people.....f*** 'EM. . At some point, enough is enough. I'll use small words so you can understand. If you feel that a baby in the womb is an actual baby, and that babies should not be aborted, it stands to reason that all babies, conceived under any circumstances, should not be aborted. A baby conceived in the back seat of a car by two high school sweethearts is a baby in every regard as one conceived by a rape or a case of incest. It is a s***ty situation, no doubt. Again, I never said that I felt this way. I am against abortion, but I would never judge someone who would get an abortion under any circumstance. But I also respect peoples views and beliefs. If someone believes that a fetus is a baby and that no babies, none, should be aborted, I respect their views. I understand why someone who is against aborting what is considered babies would be against aborting all babies. Is that clear enough for you? :headshake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I'll use small words so you can understand. If you feel that a baby in the womb is an actual baby, and that babies should not be aborted, it stands to reason that all babies, conceived under any circumstances, should not be aborted. A baby conceived in the back seat of a car by two high school sweethearts is a baby in every regard as one conceived by a rape or a case of incest. It is a s***ty situation, no doubt. If you feel that way, fantastic. Your feelings are your own business. Too bad science not to mention the courts disagree with you. Also, your feelings are invalidated when it concerns the rights of OTHERS. Do you even get that concept? Apparently not. Don't like the abortion? Don't have it. Spare me the s***ty slavery/genocide analogies. If anything, much like Black slaves 100 years before them, women's ovaries were finally freed from the great oppression perpetrated by the ignorant and hostile public. Again, I never said that I felt this way. I wish you would have. Hey, I am perfectly aware that it's a big world and that people in it are bound to believe all sorts of things, nonsense included. Earth is flat, you know...... It's when those unsubstanciated, inconsistent, visceral (if you see the sonogram blablabla) beliefs start to infringe upon the basic rights of OTHERS, then we have a BIG problem on our hands. I am against abortion, but I would never judge someone who would get an abortion under any circumstance. I am pro-abortion, preferrably only the chemical one during the first trimester. Anything after that, there better be a damn good excuse and a heavy financial penalty to boot. But I would never judge anyone, either way. Yay for liberal me! But I also respect peoples views and beliefs. If someone believes that a fetus is a baby and that no babies, none, should be aborted, I respect their views. I may respect their views (or I may not), especially when they come from the heart/conscience. I may even agree with them--- as I partially do in this case. However, such respect and consideration ENDS at the gates to the Supreme Court and the Congress. Certain rights and freedoms take precedence over "feelings" and "beliefs" that are ill-justified from scientific or legalistic, and some would argue even from moral standpoints. I understand why someone who is against aborting what is considered babies would be against aborting all babies. Such an inflexible, indiscriminate stance betrays the underlying ignorance and lack of compassion if not total contempt for the (young) woman. "I find the whole thing extremely unsavory and, besides, Bible says it's wrong. If I allow it to continue, God will blame me as well, Soddom and Gammorah-style. There will be no Heaven for me then. Therefore, I must do everything to prevent that from happening. Embryo = real person. Who cares how it got there-- the woman's life must be ruined for the sake of ill-formed collection of cells with a potential to some day become a feeling, thinking, full-fledged human regardless of the circumstances of the conception itself. I shall sleep better, too.". I could MAYBE understand partial birth arguements. Maybe. Banning it creates a very dangerous legislative precedent, but at least I can sympathize and understand the grusome nature of the procedure.......But this unapologetic appeasing of the nosey, the sanctimonious, the uninformed, the cowardly, the unreasonable, the bigoted? No way. Speaking of which........What if I told you I wouldn't support a politician who runs a negative ad ridiculing his opponent for supporting the death penalty "even in the cases of self-defense"? Instead I feel the former should have gone with the more apt "at least he is not a hypocrite like myself". Afterall, if you've ever been to a morgue where your dear relative layed lifeless on a metal gourney, you would understand that death is death is death, and that it makes no difference if it's a 1st degree murder or self-defense -- such is my belief anyway and who are you to marginalize my feeelings........Do you get it now, Bob? Is that clear enough for you Crystal. Should not have wasted my time with you. Next thread stop: Over-populationville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 Question: W banned the PBA, did he not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.