|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2010 19:45:59 GMT
RV! No one here is advocating lethal force and that wasn't my question to you! If the last seat on the last life boat of some modern Titanic was to go to Joe Bloke or the Industrialist Mr. Gloobalwarmsen and you could choose who gets that last seat ( and if both of the them get it the life boat sinks ) i think you may discover that you have "certain preferences".
If you were teleported back to Nazi occupied France and witnessed an assaination of a Vichy collorabator would you testify for the Gestapo?
If you're all black and white on moral issues that's OK with me, but many of us see shades of grey between the black and white! there is no moral shades of grey hon. morality IS black and white. rv's problem is that he's not able to distinguish between the two, and consistently confuses black with white.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2010 19:51:45 GMT
your hallucinations have no relevance to the question The REALITY is that I have no hallucinations on this or any subject. This man was going about his legal business and was killed by terrorist scum. Americans are DIRECTLY responsible for murdering millions of innocent babies, yet for some reason the 'pro life' people never campaign about that or have 'moral confusion' about the murder's either an no imbecilic charade by and apologist can change this. This is the result of a Chemical attack by the most powerful war machine the planet has ever witnessed. This baby was murdered in the womb of her mother by a pilot who sprayed her with a deadly chemical. Had the said pilot been taken out by a 'pro life' supporter, would there have been any 'moral confusion' at his death? No need to waffle, a simple yes or no should suffice. no laddie. grapes are NOT watermelons. there is NO similarity whatsoever between your examples. there is NO connection between war and abortion in any way, shape, or form. while i was totally opposed to the invasion of iraq, for more rational reasons than you, it is safe to assume that you would try to run this same lunacy over the totally justifiable war in afghanistan. your entire thesis has been discredited, actually from time immemorial, yet you continue to toss it in. it is your totally nonsensical devotion to imbecillic ideas such as world peace that makes you a loser everytime. NO rational person wants world peace.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Feb 9, 2010 19:57:52 GMT
NO rational person wants world peace. This wins an award for the most bizarre and stupid statement ever made on a message board.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 20:03:45 GMT
RV! If the last seat on the last life boat of some modern Titanic was to go to Joe Bloke or the Industrialist Mr. Gloobalwarmsen and you could choose who gets that last seat ( and if both of the them get it the life boat sinks ) i think you may discover that you have "certain preferences".
If you were teleported back to Nazi occupied France and witnessed an assaination of a Vichy collorabator would you testify for the Gestapo?
If you're all black and white on moral issues that's OK with me, but many of us see shades of grey between the black and white! The analogies you present are false because you are not comparing like with like. The issue is murder! The doctor was not on the titanic he was murdered! Those that profess to be 'pro life' cannot condone or turn a blind eye to murder! Choosing who lives or dies is one thing, failure to condemn a murder is another thing! On the wider note, Americans have been directly responsible for the murder of innocent children in recent decades. So I ask again. Had George W. Bush been killed by a 'pro life' activist BEFORE thousands of innocent babies were murdered in Iraq, would you have supported it? That is a yes or no answer, given your comments regarding the killing of the doctor doing his legal job? Why are very few anti abortionists out campaigning against death in any other issue than abortion? If they will not condemn deaths caused by bombing Iraq, huge third World debts, climate change or mass starvation then they cannot be called 'pro life', they are merely 'anti abortion', why use the term 'pro life' when you appear so anti life in every other sphere?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 20:13:45 GMT
there is NO similarity whatsoever between your examples. there is NO connection between war and abortion in any way, shape, or form. No? Do innocent babies die in both? What difference is there to the child when it dies at the hand of an abortionist or killed by a bomb dropped from a couple of thousand feet? If people want to consider themselves 'pro life' then how can they they justify murder of innocent people on a grand scale? If the even try, then they are hypocrites! NO rational person wants world peace. All those poor Miss World hopefulls must be overcome by grief!!!!!! Really Jumbo? Is that what you really think? Says quite a lot about Americans I think.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2010 20:34:18 GMT
NO rational person wants world peace. This wins an award for the most bizarre and stupid statement ever made on a message board. hardly hon. it IS however, the most truthful. over two hundred years ago, patrick henry asked the rhetorical question, "is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased by the chains of slavery". of course, he then gave the only intelligent answer, "forbid it, almighty god". the answer to the question is a resounding NO, at least for rational people. the FACT is that the entire lunatical notion of world peace is based on coexisting with those who don't want it, and have no desire to coexist with ANYONE else. intelligent people do NOT negotiate with evil. rational people do not want to coexist with evil. since evil can only be controlled, and can never be eradicated, NO RATIONAL PERSON WANTS WORLD PEACE.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2010 20:43:52 GMT
there is NO similarity whatsoever between your examples. there is NO connection between war and abortion in any way, shape, or form. No? Do innocent babies die in both? What difference is there to the child when it dies at the hand of an abortionist or killed by a bomb dropped from a couple of thousand feet? If people want to consider themselves 'pro life' then how can they they justify murder of innocent people on a grand scale? If the even try, then they are hypocrites! NO rational person wants world peace. All those poor Miss World hopefulls must be overcome by grief!!!!!! Really Jumbo? Is that what you really think? Says quite a lot about Americans I think. obviously, the ideal would be for there to be no need for war. the REALITY though, is that as long as there are two humans on earth, there will be war. we are having a discussion on another board about the makeup of EVERY society. in every group of humans, without exception, there will be about five percent who want to control, and five percent on the other end who want to be taken care of. you go to the middle from each end with gredations of each. the majority in the middle are willing to be led, to an extent, but will eventually balk when too much burden is placed on them in supporting both ends. as long as there is one individual on the face of the earth who is determined to rule, war will not only be a necessity, but totally desirable. unfortunately, because one chooses to cause a war, there will be casualties, and many of those casualties will be those who are either unable to speak for themselves, or refuse to resist the one who attempts to rule. those who face the task of destroying the despot have no desire to inflict death on the innocent, but it is the despot who is SOLELY responsible for each and every death that occurs. capiche? as long as there are those who want to control,
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 21:16:34 GMT
unfortunately, because one chooses to cause a war, there will be casualties, and many of those casualties will be those who are either unable to speak for themselves, or refuse to resist the one who attempts to rule. those who face the task of destroying the despot have no desire to inflict death on the innocent, but it is the despot who is SOLELY responsible for each and every death that occurs. capiche? Self serving nonsense. The person using or ordering the use of weapons is SOLELY responsible for what occurs. When you pull the trigger on a gun the actions of that bullet are YOUR responsibility, irrespective of the actions of your target. How could anyone argue against that rationally? To even attempt to do so shows a complete lack of intelligence. If I go on a drive by shooting to kill a mafia boss at the local pizza hut and five people die in a hail of bullets, then I am responsible for those five people, not my intended victim. I cannot claim that the target of said hit has caused the deaths because he chose to hide in the pizza hut. No, I chose to shoot at a pizza hut, irrespective of the risks. Those deaths are my moral (as well as legal) responsibility. Same goes for any other situation, including war. If you drop chemicals into a civilian area, then you should be aware of what damage those chemicals are doing. If those chemicals are causing that unborn child to die then it is YOUR action, not the enemy’s actions that has caused that death. You are making the conscious decision to fire into a civilian area you therefore need to accept the consequences of that action. If the abortionist is a child killer then so is the pilot who sprays an area with agent orange/napalm or ordinance, how can it be any different?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 9, 2010 21:43:10 GMT
unfortunately, because one chooses to cause a war, there will be casualties, and many of those casualties will be those who are either unable to speak for themselves, or refuse to resist the one who attempts to rule. those who face the task of destroying the despot have no desire to inflict death on the innocent, but it is the despot who is SOLELY responsible for each and every death that occurs. capiche? Self serving nonsense. The person using or ordering the use of weapons is SOLELY responsible for what occurs. When you pull the trigger on a gun the actions of that bullet are YOUR responsibility, irrespective of the actions of your target. How could anyone argue against that rationally? To even attempt to do so shows a complete lack of intelligence. If I go on a drive by shooting to kill a mafia boss at the local pizza hut and five people die in a hail of bullets, then I am responsible for those five people, not my intended victim. I cannot claim that the target of said hit has caused the deaths because he chose to hide in the pizza hut. No, I chose to shoot at a pizza hut, irrespective of the risks. Those deaths are my moral (as well as legal) responsibility. Same goes for any other situation, including war. If you drop chemicals into a civilian area, then you should be aware of what damage those chemicals are doing. If those chemicals are causing that unborn child to die then it is YOUR action, not the enemy’s actions that has caused that death. You are making the conscious decision to fire into a civilian area you therefore need to accept the consequences of that action. If the abortionist is a child killer then so is the pilot who sprays an area with agent orange/napalm or ordinance, how can it be any different? i, personally, do not know if abortion is wrong or not. i do oppose it because it really is the killing of an innocent victim, but i am not sure whether a baby in the first trimester actually is a real person. however, i do take the position that if it is wrong, the woman will have to answer to god, not to me. therefore, i don't necesarily count the doctor who performs the abortion as a killer.. it is really comical, in a perverse way, to see fools screaming that they care nothing about the life of an unborn baby, but clamor to save the life of an individual who has wilfully murdered a child that was alive. talk about hypocrisy to the max. nonetheless, there is NO comparison between abortion and war, or your drive by shooting scenario either.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 22:12:16 GMT
i, personally, do not know if abortion is wrong or not. i do oppose it because it really is the killing of an innocent victim, but i am not sure whether a baby in the first trimester actually is a real person. however, i do take the position that if it is wrong, the woman will have to answer to god, not to me. therefore, i don't necesarily count the doctor who performs the abortion as a killer... I can respect that position, if that is how you feel about abortion.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Feb 9, 2010 22:30:08 GMT
RV! If the last seat on the last life boat of some modern Titanic was to go to Joe Bloke or the Industrialist Mr. Gloobalwarmsen and you could choose who gets that last seat ( and if both of the them get it the life boat sinks ) i think you may discover that you have "certain preferences".
If you were teleported back to Nazi occupied France and witnessed an assaination of a Vichy collorabator would you testify for the Gestapo?
If you're all black and white on moral issues that's OK with me, but many of us see shades of grey between the black and white! The analogies you present are false because you are not comparing like with like. The issue is murder! The doctor was not on the titanic he was murdered! Those that profess to be 'pro life' cannot condone or turn a blind eye to murder! Choosing who lives or dies is one thing, failure to condemn a murder is another thing! On the wider note, Americans have been directly responsible for the murder of innocent children in recent decades. So I ask again. Had George W. Bush been killed by a 'pro life' activist BEFORE thousands of innocent babies were murdered in Iraq, would you have supported it? That is a yes or no answer, given your comments regarding the killing of the doctor doing his legal job? Why are very few anti abortionists out campaigning against death in any other issue than abortion? If they will not condemn deaths caused by bombing Iraq, huge third World debts, climate change or mass starvation then they cannot be called 'pro life', they are merely 'anti abortion', why use the term 'pro life' when you appear so anti life in every other sphere? Iraq is a nightmare! Saddam Hussein mass murdered Kurds with poison gas, intending to murder Iraqi citizens! At least US pilots try to avoid civilian areas! I would prefer that America follow Switzerland's example of neutrality in these affairs. The tragic reality is innocent people in Iraq were destined to be killed accidentally by intervening military strikes or intentionally by a murderous dictator! Simply a no win situation.
I think there is a moral difference between intentionally killing a child with one's own hands or unintentionally killing a child in a military action! Of course the horrors of the fire bombing in Dresden are not forgotten here! The Dresden bombing was truly excessive and targeted civilians!
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Feb 9, 2010 22:48:41 GMT
I think there is a moral difference between intentionally killing a child with one's own hands or unintentionally killing a child in a military action! Of course the horrors of the fire bombing in Dresden are not forgotten here! The Dresden bombing was truly excessive and targeted civilians! [/color][/size][/quote] There are occasions where mothers have assisted in their child's suicide, or even carried out a 'mercy killing' when there is no prospect of recovery. This done out of love Many children who are born unwanted go on to have truly awful lives. Is it not better sometimes to prevent that misery?
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 9, 2010 23:00:03 GMT
At least US pilots try to avoid civilian areas!
But that is not enough though, is it? When the Americans decided to bomb Iraq there was always going to be civilian deaths. Everyone knew that! Everyone, even the anti abortionists knew that. You either oppose killing or you do not. If you call yourself 'pro life' (life being a word with a large meaning), you cannot pick and choose what life you respect! 'Life' in human terms, means a lot of things.
The tragic reality is innocent people in Iraq were destined to be killed accidentally by intervening military strikes or intentionally by a murderous dictator! Simply a no win situation.
That cannot be a rational statement though can it? You cannot take a dead baby from US bombs and say 'she would have died from Sadams bombs anyway', you have no idea who that child could/would have died. Many abortions take place when the child is destined to die as well. By the same rationakle you could argue that a given aborted child would have died in a crack den or via a painful illness etc.
I think there is a moral difference between intentionally killing a child with one's own hands or unintentionally killing a child in a military action! What difference does it make to the child? If child 'A' is aborted via a mother who could/would not care for the child and child 'B' who is killed by a chemical spray, but was destined to live in a loving family, what moral difference does it make? Why are the so called 'pro life' people not openly protesting about these deaths? Why are the 'pro life' people not demanding the cancelation of third World debt or action against climate change or action against staravation or medical coverage for the poor? Why is it that so many children die EVERY DAY without a peep from the 'pro life' brigade, yet the ONLY thing they are against is abortion. WHY DO ANTI ABORTIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES 'PRO LIFE' WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY A SINGLE ISSUE GROUP. When I see 'pro life people in front of banks, army bases etc demanding tan end to mass killing then call yourselves 'pro life'?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2010 8:51:52 GMT
I cannot conceive of a God who puts the life of an egg which happens to have met with a sperm and is beginning the process of cell division on an equal level as a sentient human being - or even a farm animal, whom we treat so cruelly at times.
In my philosopy those who keep their chickens in crowded batteries and who torture bulls for fun before slaughter are more more likely incur God's wrath.
But the introductionof war into this debate seems a red herring to me too. It isn't the killing of the unborn we should be worrying about in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 10, 2010 12:18:43 GMT
I cannot conceive of a God who puts the life of an egg which happens to have met with a sperm and is beginning the process of cell division on an equal level as a sentient human being - or even a farm animal, whom we treat so cruelly at times. In my philosopy those who keep their chickens in crowded batteries and who torture bulls for fun before slaughter are more more likely incur God's wrath. But the introductionof war into this debate seems a red herring to me too. It isn't the killing of the unborn we should be worrying about in that situation. i totally agree with you and hope that you're right. i eat meat, but detest the fact that somebody had to die in order for me to do so. hopefully, there is an especially miserable place in hell for those who mistreat animals. you are quite correct. i have pointed out several times that war has no relevance to abortion. however, rv is correct that people should be equally as adamant about doing something about the bankers, etc and their killing of innocent people for profit
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 10, 2010 12:22:50 GMT
i, personally, do not know if abortion is wrong or not. i do oppose it because it really is the killing of an innocent victim, but i am not sure whether a baby in the first trimester actually is a real person. however, i do take the position that if it is wrong, the woman will have to answer to god, not to me. therefore, i don't necesarily count the doctor who performs the abortion as a killer... I can respect that position, if that is how you feel about abortion. i can't feel any other way. it is something that i am not able to completely decide, so i take the easy way out
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 10, 2010 14:16:04 GMT
At least US pilots try to avoid civilian areas!
But that is not enough though, is it? When the Americans decided to bomb Iraq there was always going to be civilian deaths. Everyone knew that! Everyone, even the anti abortionists knew that. You either oppose killing or you do not. If you call yourself 'pro life' (life being a word with a large meaning), you cannot pick and choose what life you respect! 'Life' in human terms, means a lot of things. That cannot be a rational statement though can it? You cannot take a dead baby from US bombs and say 'she would have died from Sadams bombs anyway', you have no idea who that child could/would have died. Many abortions take place when the child is destined to die as well. By the same rationakle you could argue that a given aborted child would have died in a crack den or via a painful illness etc.
I think there is a moral difference between intentionally killing a child with one's own hands or unintentionally killing a child in a military action! What difference does it make to the child? If child 'A' is aborted via a mother who could/would not care for the child and child 'B' who is killed by a chemical spray, but was destined to live in a loving family, what moral difference does it make? Why are the so called 'pro life' people not openly protesting about these deaths? Why are the 'pro life' people not demanding the cancelation of third World debt or action against climate change or action against staravation or medical coverage for the poor? Why is it that so many children die EVERY DAY without a peep from the 'pro life' brigade, yet the ONLY thing they are against is abortion. WHY DO ANTI ABORTIONISTS CALL THEMSELVES 'PRO LIFE' WHEN THEY ARE CLEARLY A SINGLE ISSUE GROUP. When I see 'pro life people in front of banks, army bases etc demanding tan end to mass killing then call yourselves 'pro life'? RV, you and Jumbo both constantly think in terms of moral absolutes. I don't know if it's because I've done so many bad things myself in my youth or just my basic nature but I can't look at the world in black and white terms like you do. Rather than calling it 'shades of grey,' I'd rather use the metaphor of the rainbow with its many shades of colour. Anyway, let's start with war. I don't know if you are a pacifist or not - if you are then I respect your consistency but don't share it. How the hell do you think we could have beaten Hitler if it hadn't been for going to war with him? As it was my uncle lost his parents, brothers and sister and me and my Mum would have been dead meat too if he'd won, along with millions of other people. Sometimes, sadly, you just have to fight IMHO, just as I learned from an early age that the only way to stop bullies is to stand up to them and hit them back. Now I come to the 'rant' part of your message. You're making ASSUMPTIONS again about people's politics. I appreciate that in America the majority of pro-lifers probably DO vote Republican, consider themselves conservative and so on. It's NOT like that in Britain. The majority of the British pro-lifers I've met are, like me, either political centrists or on the political left. Most of the 'pro-choicers' I know belong to the Conservative Party and most of the 'pro-lifers' I know vote Labour or Lib Dem or are to the left of them. I've actually known about half a dozen Marxists who were pro-life, four Communists and two Trotskyists. I can only speak for myself but quite a few people here know that I am passionately AGAINST global capitalism and that I went on the demo against it last year. I've written lots of letters to my MP, to Government ministers and my MEP demanding action on poverty, Third World Debt, and a whole range of other issues. What's more, I know I'm NOT an exception. Quite a few of my pro-life friends do the same. I've campaigned for prison reform, inmates' rights, greater rights for women, greater human rights, better medical treatment, better provision for the poor and so on. So have lots of my friends. Dear RV, you really MUST stop thinking in this 'one size fits all' mentality. I oppose abortion because I don't want to kill an innocent life. I don't support war but sometimes it's a regrettable necessity and the alternative is even worse. I want us to be a caring, compassionate society which tries to look after everyone and in my book part of that includes the protection of the rights of the unborn child.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Feb 10, 2010 14:18:14 GMT
This wins an award for the most bizarre and stupid statement ever made on a message board.
Oh, I don't know. You've got to go a long way to beat the statement by Anja on a now defunct board that 'the only thing wrong with Hitler is that he didn't kill ENOUGH Jews and gypsies.'
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Feb 10, 2010 15:17:15 GMT
Lin, I can assure you that I to see the need for several hues of your rainbow. That is why I am now ‘pro choice’ on abortion. There are far too many variables, far too many ‘bad cases’, far too many marginal cases that it has to be left to the individual because there is no way to legislate for every eventuality.
However, what I see from many of ‘anti abortionists’ is that moral absolute in one particular case, abortion and nowhere else. I accept that many anti abortionists do campaign against other things that are consistent with their beliefs and that is fine. I can accept their beliefs in such circumstances, even if I cannot agree with them. On the other hand, there are plenty that show breathtaking hypocrisy looking at other issues.
I wonder what the Venn diagram looks like when you draw two circles of those who approve of killing innocents in wars and through famine, poverty etc.
I find it absolutely nauseating to see people die everyday through preventable tragedies, with the so called ‘pro life’ not even mentioning it. How can someone calling themselves ‘pro life’ not mention the children killed because their parents cannot afford health cover for example? Or shelter, food or water. Two and a half million bucks could be spent in far better ways and save far more lives than a 30 second commercial.
|
|