spartacus1984
Well-Known Member
TooCuriousWhat is your definition of innocence?
We just use your definition of innocence, for this discussion,
to keep thing simple.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem
- Thread starter AkiraYamato
- Start date
TooCuriousWhat is your definition of innocence?
We just use your definition of innocence, for this discussion,
to keep thing simple.
You brought up the question:
If you want your question to be meaningful to me and want an answer that is meaningful in regards to what you meant to ask you would have to define your keyterms properly.
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 38
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
The stereotypical teenage refrain - "I didn't ask to be born!" - raises a valid point. What makes bringing someone into existence a more acceptable activity than sending them out of it?
Upvote
0
I have a feeling you've not read completely what I've wrote. However Law IMO is just another an eye for an eye thing.
Upvote
0
spartacus1984
Well-Known Member
so than if bringing someone into existence isn't a more acceptable activity?
and then dont you think the death penalty isn't a really good idea?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, I did. I may have misunderstood something, though. So which part of which post of yours answers my questions or renders them irrelevant?
It is not, in my opinion. It needn´t be, it often isn´t, and it shouldn´t be.
We can have laws without pursuing retribution.
Upvote
0
As I posted above, there are four major reasons why we have law and punishment:
To deter people from committing crime, to prevent the criminals from committing the crimes again, to rehabilitate the criminals back into society and finally, retribution, for a crime to be punished in proportion to the crime.
I would argue that the most important, in a society, is deterrence - ideally no crimes are committed. The next two I think are of equal importance - rehabilitation back into society and societal protection - basically ensuring that when societal norms are broken attempts are made to rehabilitate the criminal into that society, while protecting the society from repeat offenses until that rehabilitation occurs. Lastly is that of retribution, the instinctual, passionate response... it satisfies those primal lusts for an eye for an eye, but in the end can never really do that (killing the criminal does not bring back their victims as they were before, it is simply not possible).
A punishment should be fulfilling all of those criteria. The death penalty clearly does not.
Upvote
0
JadeTigress
Senior Member
- Aug 15, 2006
- 1,150
- 96
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
I'm the opposite.
If people want to get abortions, I'm completely fine with that. But I am against the death penalty.
If people want to get abortions, I'm completely fine with that. But I am against the death penalty.
Upvote
0
spartacus1984
Well-Known Member
JadeTigressI dont want you to change your mind as you read this.
and
I do want you to change your mind as you read this.
what wouldnt have to happen for you to change your mind?
and
what would have to happen for you to change your mind?
dont you have the ability to change your mind?
and
do you have the ability to change your mind?
Hasnt there ever been a time when you believed one thing,
And then later didnt realised that the opposite wasnt true?
and
Has there ever been a time when you believed one thing,
And then later did realised that the opposite was true?
For example
Allowing a baby to be born isnt a really good idea if the mother doesnt
Want the baby to be born.
Or
Allowing a baby to be born is a really good idea if the mother does
Want the baby to be born.
Or
Allowing a baby to be born isnt a really good idea if the mother does
Want the baby to be born.
Or
Allowing a baby to be born is a really good idea if the mother doesnt
Want the baby to be born.
What is your preference now?
You dont have to think long and hard about me think of this what of this.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In general, those who are pro-choice are anti-death penalty.
Those who are pro-life are pro-death penalty.
On the surface, it seems to be contradictory. How can one not have a problem of ending the life of a baby, but have a problem with ending the life of a criminal.
How can one have a problem with ending the life of a fetus that is not quite fully formed or recognizable as a human, but have no problem ending the life of a fully grown, conscious adult, regardless of the crime?
However, I have a theory. Those who are pro-choice don't see a group of cells as "human". The embryo looks like this during the first trimester when abortion is allowed:
http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/1stTrimester.htm
When a baby is born, it can't focus, has only basic understanding of sleeping, and needs, so one questions whether an embryo, without a developed brain, is really "human" yet, or simply on the way to becoming one.
Pro-life, however, believe that a baby is human with a soul at the minute of conception:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy1.htm
One cell, then 8 = fully human in their eyes.
However, they believe that the death penalty is valid because of "an eye for an eye", and feel that retribution has been made. Why should they show mercy when the murderer didn't. They may claim OT rules, they may claim the death deserves death, but it is revenge that they seek.
In my opinion, I think both views are short sighted. Pro-Choice will admit that at some point, the unborn baby is considered human (4 months-7months, usually.) The law considers the unborn fetus/baby a human if killed during a pregnancy at a point where the baby can survive outside of the womb. However, I think that it is hard to say at what point an unborn baby becomes human. Is there an exact day? Some religions believe that the soul enters the body on a specific day. Some think it happens at conception. Others think it happens when the child is born. Because we can't even prove that humans have souls, show it physically, we aren't really in a position to decide that. I think it is a bit of a crap shoot.
On the other hand, Pro-Lifers claim that their goal is to protest Abortion Clinics because they care about "saving babies." Unfortunately, they are often the same people that condemn women who have children out of wedlock, women who decide to have their baby and are forced to go on welfare, and treat them with shame, or as a burden on the economy, and do so for the rest of their child's upbringing. They will show you cute pictures of a 1 year old under a blanket, and ask why anyone would want to kill a baby, but not show you a fetus at conception, that looks like a bunch of cells, or even at 4 weeks, when it looks like a tadpole, or 8 weeks, when it looks like it wants to say, "ET Phone Home." That is because it is difficult to sell the message that it is a baby if its head is almost as big as its entire body, and looks bizarre, if not a little unsettling.
The Pro-Choice camp, I believe, puts themselves in the shoes of the pregnant woman, or the murderer, thinking that were they a pregnant woman that didn't want the baby, they would want the option, or if they murdered someone, they would want mercy.
The Pro-Life camp usually comes from a point of view of judgement of another, telling the person what they should do that is right, telling the 15 year old girl that she is a murderer, and as the song says, "Call her a killer, call her harlot", not once thinking about how difficult the choice is, how scared she might be, etc. For the murderer, he is judged as well, believing he has sealed his own fate, show no mercy because he showed none, show no forgiveness, because he showed none, disgusted by him as a person, thinking the world better off without him, and offering him no second chance, give him no place for redemption, no place to change his ways, as God gave Saul, and changed him into Paul.
Each is a human reaction. I understand it. Were someone to kill my partner, or my friend, I would think that lethal injection would give me closure, instead of having his killer stay in jail, working out and watching cable. I would want him to die and lose his life as my friend lost his.
But that is my old Adam, my humaness. It is not my Spirit, my New Creation. Christ was murdered, and murdered because man killed him, not because a sacrifice was necessary to God, I believe. It was necessary to man. Man rejected his ideas of forgiveness, of mercy, of loving your enemies, of turning the other cheek. Jesus' disciples were tax collectors and fisherman. Mary Magdeline was a prostitute. Zaccheus was a tax collector. Saul murdered Christians when he worked for Rome, and was chosen by God. Christ even told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in the Kingdom.
Its hard to be forgiving of someone who killed a child, or kidnapped and tortured someone, or who flew a plane into a building and killed a lot of people. However, that person is a lost sheep, a Child of God. Some will argue that one is only a child of God once they are saved, but then why would Jesus come to save the saved? Why would the Good Shepard go to find the sheep that isn't lost? Why would the physician care only about those who aren't sick? How loving is a God that demands that you love him first, and demands your adoration?
I used to be pretty judgemental of others, and through meeting people, listening to their stories, and hearing how they have been through some very difficult times, I understood why they drank too much occassionally, or seemed to push others away, seemed arrogant to hide their insecurities, appeared conceited but were actually self loathing or shy. I realized that I judged people on appearances, judged the book by its cover.
I also learned that the most terrible person is still my neighbor, is still redeemable, and still loved by God, who has no greater will than that the person realize that God loves them still, and always has and always will. So often, people that steal, lie, kill, or anything else because they see life as a jungle, deep down, often don't believe that a God would ever love them, and don't even love themselves. Maybe they have never known love from their parents, have never known a friend who always stands by them, have never known self love. I believe that love heals, and that's what happened with Christ when he ate with the prostitutes and tax collectors. He showed them that he loved them, that they were not disgusting in his eyes, were not lowly, but were loved, and always would be, and in so, lit the love of self, and allowed them to then love others as they loved themself. Suddenly, their life mattered, mattered to God, mattered to them. They were worthy of love, and by having it internally, could give it to others.
If God can forgive a murderer, so can I. I can't do it with ease. I have to fight my human reaction for revenge, my human reaction to allow anger to rule my heart and mind. But that is not the way of God, not the way of the Buddha. I have to believe that the murder is redeemable, is my neighbor, is a Child of God who needs healing, who needs my mercy more than others, and needs my love and prayers. And through God, I believe that is possible.
Namaste
Those who are pro-life are pro-death penalty.
On the surface, it seems to be contradictory. How can one not have a problem of ending the life of a baby, but have a problem with ending the life of a criminal.
How can one have a problem with ending the life of a fetus that is not quite fully formed or recognizable as a human, but have no problem ending the life of a fully grown, conscious adult, regardless of the crime?
However, I have a theory. Those who are pro-choice don't see a group of cells as "human". The embryo looks like this during the first trimester when abortion is allowed:
http://www.paternityangel.com/PicsAndPhotos/FoetalDevelop/1stTrimester.htm
When a baby is born, it can't focus, has only basic understanding of sleeping, and needs, so one questions whether an embryo, without a developed brain, is really "human" yet, or simply on the way to becoming one.
Pro-life, however, believe that a baby is human with a soul at the minute of conception:
http://health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy1.htm
One cell, then 8 = fully human in their eyes.
However, they believe that the death penalty is valid because of "an eye for an eye", and feel that retribution has been made. Why should they show mercy when the murderer didn't. They may claim OT rules, they may claim the death deserves death, but it is revenge that they seek.
In my opinion, I think both views are short sighted. Pro-Choice will admit that at some point, the unborn baby is considered human (4 months-7months, usually.) The law considers the unborn fetus/baby a human if killed during a pregnancy at a point where the baby can survive outside of the womb. However, I think that it is hard to say at what point an unborn baby becomes human. Is there an exact day? Some religions believe that the soul enters the body on a specific day. Some think it happens at conception. Others think it happens when the child is born. Because we can't even prove that humans have souls, show it physically, we aren't really in a position to decide that. I think it is a bit of a crap shoot.
On the other hand, Pro-Lifers claim that their goal is to protest Abortion Clinics because they care about "saving babies." Unfortunately, they are often the same people that condemn women who have children out of wedlock, women who decide to have their baby and are forced to go on welfare, and treat them with shame, or as a burden on the economy, and do so for the rest of their child's upbringing. They will show you cute pictures of a 1 year old under a blanket, and ask why anyone would want to kill a baby, but not show you a fetus at conception, that looks like a bunch of cells, or even at 4 weeks, when it looks like a tadpole, or 8 weeks, when it looks like it wants to say, "ET Phone Home." That is because it is difficult to sell the message that it is a baby if its head is almost as big as its entire body, and looks bizarre, if not a little unsettling.
The Pro-Choice camp, I believe, puts themselves in the shoes of the pregnant woman, or the murderer, thinking that were they a pregnant woman that didn't want the baby, they would want the option, or if they murdered someone, they would want mercy.
The Pro-Life camp usually comes from a point of view of judgement of another, telling the person what they should do that is right, telling the 15 year old girl that she is a murderer, and as the song says, "Call her a killer, call her harlot", not once thinking about how difficult the choice is, how scared she might be, etc. For the murderer, he is judged as well, believing he has sealed his own fate, show no mercy because he showed none, show no forgiveness, because he showed none, disgusted by him as a person, thinking the world better off without him, and offering him no second chance, give him no place for redemption, no place to change his ways, as God gave Saul, and changed him into Paul.
Each is a human reaction. I understand it. Were someone to kill my partner, or my friend, I would think that lethal injection would give me closure, instead of having his killer stay in jail, working out and watching cable. I would want him to die and lose his life as my friend lost his.
But that is my old Adam, my humaness. It is not my Spirit, my New Creation. Christ was murdered, and murdered because man killed him, not because a sacrifice was necessary to God, I believe. It was necessary to man. Man rejected his ideas of forgiveness, of mercy, of loving your enemies, of turning the other cheek. Jesus' disciples were tax collectors and fisherman. Mary Magdeline was a prostitute. Zaccheus was a tax collector. Saul murdered Christians when he worked for Rome, and was chosen by God. Christ even told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in the Kingdom.
Its hard to be forgiving of someone who killed a child, or kidnapped and tortured someone, or who flew a plane into a building and killed a lot of people. However, that person is a lost sheep, a Child of God. Some will argue that one is only a child of God once they are saved, but then why would Jesus come to save the saved? Why would the Good Shepard go to find the sheep that isn't lost? Why would the physician care only about those who aren't sick? How loving is a God that demands that you love him first, and demands your adoration?
I used to be pretty judgemental of others, and through meeting people, listening to their stories, and hearing how they have been through some very difficult times, I understood why they drank too much occassionally, or seemed to push others away, seemed arrogant to hide their insecurities, appeared conceited but were actually self loathing or shy. I realized that I judged people on appearances, judged the book by its cover.
I also learned that the most terrible person is still my neighbor, is still redeemable, and still loved by God, who has no greater will than that the person realize that God loves them still, and always has and always will. So often, people that steal, lie, kill, or anything else because they see life as a jungle, deep down, often don't believe that a God would ever love them, and don't even love themselves. Maybe they have never known love from their parents, have never known a friend who always stands by them, have never known self love. I believe that love heals, and that's what happened with Christ when he ate with the prostitutes and tax collectors. He showed them that he loved them, that they were not disgusting in his eyes, were not lowly, but were loved, and always would be, and in so, lit the love of self, and allowed them to then love others as they loved themself. Suddenly, their life mattered, mattered to God, mattered to them. They were worthy of love, and by having it internally, could give it to others.
If God can forgive a murderer, so can I. I can't do it with ease. I have to fight my human reaction for revenge, my human reaction to allow anger to rule my heart and mind. But that is not the way of God, not the way of the Buddha. I have to believe that the murder is redeemable, is my neighbor, is a Child of God who needs healing, who needs my mercy more than others, and needs my love and prayers. And through God, I believe that is possible.
Namaste
Upvote
0
B
B'alaam
Guest
The word you're looking for here is "hypocritical" I think.
And yes, I think it is hypocritical.
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 38
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Beanieboy, I think foetuses are completely human, and human beings, and even people if you feel like it. I just don't think it's bad, from a foetus' point of view, to be aborted, so I see no reason not to do so.
Upvote
0
Alexandrah
Regular Member
What did Jesus Christ do wrong? He was, after all, a victim of the death penalty.
You are saying that everyone executed is 100% guilty of something, but you're wrong. Innocent people are executed. There is no way to determine guilt with 100% accuracy, even if you have a strong case there is still a possibility that evidence was manipulated or that they got the wrong guy.
Upvote
0
G
gattaca
Guest
I dont think you understand the reality of the of the fact that a foetus isnt a human beings.
And that is why foetus shouldnt be given the human right to live.
Upvote
0
G
gattaca
Guest
I dont want you to change your mind as you read this.
and
I do want you to change your mind as you read this.
what wouldnt have to happen for you to change your mind?
and
what would have to happen for you to change your mind?
dont you have the ability to change your mind?
and
do you have the ability to change your mind?
Hasnt there ever been a time when you believed one thing,
And then later didnt realised that the opposite wasnt true?
and
Has there ever been a time when you believed one thing,
And then later did realised that the opposite was true?
For example
Allowing a baby to be born isnt a really good idea if the mother doesnt
Want the baby to be born.
Or
Allowing a baby to be born is a really good idea if the mother does
Want the baby to be born.
Or
Allowing a baby to be born isnt a really good idea if the mother does
Want the baby to be born.
Or
Allowing a baby to be born is a really good idea if the mother doesnt
Want the baby to be born.
What is your preference now?
You dont have to think long and hard about me think of this what of this.
I dont understand this?
Upvote
0
cantata
Queer non-theist, with added jam.
- Feb 20, 2007
- 6,215
- 683
- 38
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't believe in a human right to life, except a legal one, where it exists. That's why I don't think any such right should be afforded to foetuses.
Upvote
0
Personally, I would have to rely on the findings of science concerning the capability of developing wishes, expectations and POVs as well as the ability of experiencing physical pain (and at which point in the development of a fetus they kick in).
Other than that I see no way to determine whether a fetus has a POV at all, any more I can determine whether a sperm or an apple has a POV.
Once there´s compelling evidence that a fetus has a POV I still wouldn´t see any way of determining whether its wish is to spend roughly 80 years on earth or prefers this cup to pass.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
