I move that we vote him supreme dictator for life.
I hear you bro… But what do you expect from a man that has an avatar with a black baby crying surrounded by “The Official Seal of the United States Democratic Party.” lol
Personally, I find it extremely humorous. Nevertheless the implications are boundless!
My sentiment exactly. We know how efficient fascism can be…
Isn’t it ironic that there are certain Democratic inititives that as a side effect would lower the incidence of abortion through social change, yet are hated by conservatives because they are gasp socialist. But then again it’s easier to legislate morality - that is when it’s your moral view thats being legislated. That’s the fundy way …
At least the trains would run on time 
Yes, the epitome of irony…
Good questions, all. Yes, Jesus would certainly be in favor of capitol punishment. After all, He wrote the Old Testament too! I’ll address in another post what Jesus really meant when he said “do not resist an evil person.”
No, I do not believe in an “eye for an eye” - I don’t believe that someone who rapes should be raped himself, and I don’t believe that someone who assaults should be assaulted as well.
We are not talking about personal revenge here. I am always against that. It’s the government’s job to be the “agent of wrath” (Romans 13) on those that do evil, not mine.
Finally, you say that you wouldn’t be doing me a favor if I wanted to die instead of spending life in prison. But in reality, isn’t that your definition?
Actually, it’s the truth whether it happens to be my definition or not. Life is a gift from God, and we are held accountable for that gift. To demand to die is to be a poor steward of that gift, and it is to miss what God has to offer. And believe me, if someone has to spend the rest of their life in jail, they are richly deserving of it, at least in this country.
Good question concerning Matthew 5:38. What did Jesus mean? He states “do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
First of all, to follow what I assume to be your reasoning on this, to obey Christ’s command we would have to allow all criminals to run free, to allow them to steal, murder, rape and pillage at will. Yet clearly Christ would not advocate such a thing, especially when Romans 13 clearly defines government’s role as the bringer of justice, and the Old Testament gives us a multitude of laws to deal with law-breakers, and clearly allows for self defense by the innocent.
So Jesus couldn’t be talking about government’s role in restraining evil or punishing the guilty. The passage simply makes no sense if we take it that way.
No, Jesus was talking about the individual Christians reaction to being taunted, insulted or treated rudely. Jesus wants His people to restrain themselves, and not return evil for evil.
Being struck on the cheek in the Jewish world of the first century was an insult, not a physical assault. It was like spitting in someone’s eye, or saying “Your mama!”
Regarding the French revolution, it used capitol punishment unjustly. They killed people for their political beliefs. It was the world’s first truly atheistic revolution, and this was evident in the way that government behaved. Vladimir Lenin in the Soviet Union carried it to its logical conclusion in the 1920’s. Adolph Hitler did as well. These were evil governments that abused their power, so I don’t believe that we can advocate the abolition of capitol punishment from these examples.
Whoops - I forgot to address your question on euthanasia!
I believe it is wrong to committ suicide, or to pay someone else to do it for you, and that this leads to a lessening respect for human life. It, in effect, puts man in the place of God. In fact, knowing how human nature works, a society that allows euthanasia will eventually decide to euthanize the old, infirm, mentally retarded or insane without their permission.
If you allow some to kill themselves because “life isn’t worth living”, then you communicate the message that there is a certain quality of life past which individuals just aren’t worth keeping around anymore. Nazi Germany certainly believed that.
And in a little known and very uncomfortable part of American history, forcible sterilization was practiced on the retarded. In fact, Suprme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority opinion in Buck v. Bell allowing the forced sterilization of a young retarded girl by the state. He actually stated in the opinion, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t other prophets and apostle write the different chapters of the bible?
Furthermore, weren’t the words of Jesus in the bible actually quotes written by apostles?
Also, Aren’t the parables and statements of the bible subject to interpretation?
Let’s not forget that some followers of the bible used it to justify slavery, racism and sexism among other morally questionable ideals!
Ok, so you don’t believe in the “eye for an eye” theory.
I think the major question that’s really hard to pin down is: Why is the death penalty an important option for the crime of murder? You don’t believe in eye for an eye, you claim to be for life, but you draw the distinction with government killings, because the person is subject to a trial and due process.
I wonder…Can you see the inconsistencies there?
Consequently, you have made a belief a universal truth. But, in the case of this example, if I don’t share those beliefs; then I am sure you can realize that I would disagree with your assessment. Personally, I truly believe quality of life is more important than quantity of life. If I can’t be free, I would rather die. You may disagree…
Finally, I made no implications about a person deserving life in prison or not, but being that you brought that up… If a person is truly guilty of certain crimes, then life in prison is a viable option.
What I DID say is given a choice; I would rather DIE than spend life in jail. For me, quality of life is MUCH more important than quantity. You may disagree, Nevertheless…
I know this answer was for Dazed, but it relates to our conversation.
Here you state:
In fact, knowing how human nature works, a society that allows euthanasia will eventually decide to euthanize the old, infirm, mentally retarded or insane without their permission.
And you give example to back that statement. But, when it comes to the death penalty you don’t seem to take into consideration your afformention statement.
Do you realize that some mentally retarded and/or insane people are being held in prison and some are sentence to death? Wouldn’t a society that allows the death penalty eventually kill the mentally retarded or insane?
George Bush sees no problem in sentencing to death a menatlly retarded man & he thinks God (or was it his brother’s state??) put him in the White House.
Of course you have to take your interpretaion from the stories in the bible. There has always been debate on that subject & many of the stories can be found through the ages (pre bible) & believed by many. But… if you take it word for word (& hope the translation was bang on) then women are chattle.
As for euthasia…it is going on everyday, my friend. My father was suffering desperately in the end stages of cancer. When he took a turn for the worse & was on his death bed,the morphine was increased until he was no longer breathing.
His father (my grandfather) suffered from prosate cancer. I was too young to remember this but my father said the first year was not bad but the last year “you would not want to see a dog in that kind of pain”. My father told me he would not go through that kind of torture… I knew what he meant & I told him I would help him in any way he needed. It never came to that but I do not see where we would give more value to the suffering of a dog than to that of our loved ones.
I don’t buy the “slippery slope” theory that people like to use to strike fear into others (we will end up killing off the mentally retarded or simply “useless” or unattractive of society). If you buy that, I would be getting abortions as a form of birth control… as has been suggested would happen with legal abortion… this has not become the case.
If it was a sin for me to offer my father my help so that he would not feel alone at the end of his struggle, God will punish me but that would be after HE judges me, not any one else.
Of course you have to take your interpretaion from the stories in the bible. There has always been debate on that subject & many of the stories can be found through the ages (pre bible) & believed by many. But… if you take it word for word (& hope the translation was bang on) then women are chattle.
If you buy that, I would be getting abortions as a form of birth control… as has been suggested would happen with legal abortion… this has not become the case.
For what it’s worth, you have my sympathy for the terrible trauma your family went through. God bless all of them.
I don’t think what your family did would count as euthanasia. It sounds as if your father was moments away from dying, and if someone is drawing their last breath the health staff will ease their departure. It’s not as if your father sat down after the diagnosis and said, “I’ve got five to seven years but forget it.” But I admit it’s a tough issue for anyone, family included.
Regarding abortion - a form of birth control is precisely what it is used for today. In America, there are over 1 million abortions that take place each and every year. Almost all of them are for elective reasons - it is simply inconvenient for the mother to have a baby at that exact moment. The hard truth is that the overwhelming number of abortions are done for the sake of convenience - lack of money, interrupted career, no husband, didn’t love the father, still in school, etc. So abortion has indeed become a method of birth control.
Politicans such as Margaret Thatcher (former Great Britain PM) stated in her autobiography that she would never have voted to legalize the abortion if she knew what it would become. Of course, if she understood human nature she would have known.
Regarding the Bible, women were never known as chattel. I’m not sure where you may have gotten that from. On the contrary, a woman (Mary) bore Jesus, women were the last to be with Jesus at the Cross (Mary and Mary Magdalene) when all the other male disciples had fled save John, and Mary Magdalene was the first to receive the news that Christ had been resurrected. Women were and are equally regarded by Christ.
Look at it this way - if I use your posts to justify the burning of Bibles, would that mean that you are championing the burning of Bibles? Of course not. Justification for racism, slavery and sexism are not a part of the character of Christ, and are not a part of His Word. I could offer a treatise on why all three are wrong theologically, but it isn’t related to our present discussion, and I suspect you know innately that it isn’t so anyway.
I think the major question that’s really hard to pin down is: Why is the death penalty an important option for the crime of murder? You don’t believe in eye for an eye, you claim to be for life, but you draw the distinction with government killings, because the person is subject to a trial and due process.
The death penalty in response to murder is a principle that is older than the Old Testament - it goes back to the book of Genesis. I think that human life is so precious that if someone attempts to stand in the place of God and take it, it is the government’s duty, in order to enact justice, to execute that person after a fair trial and due process.
Here you state:
“In fact, knowing how human nature works, a society that allows euthanasia will eventually decide to euthanize the old, infirm, mentally retarded or insane without their permission.”
And you give example to back that statement. But, when it comes to the death penalty you don’t seem to take into consideration your afformention statement.
Do you realize that some mentally retarded and/or insane people are being held in prison and some are sentence to death? Wouldn’t a society that allows the death penalty eventually kill the mentally retarded or insane?
Yes, in fact the mentally retarded are executed in some states. The insane are often given a “not guilty” verdict, but some are no doubt executed. Yet I am not sure how to quantify if someone is “insane” or not. With mental retardation there is an organic brain dysfunction stemming from genetics or brain trauma. Insanity isn’t like that at all. Often you can’t look at a brain in the laboratory and say, “Ah, yes, we’ve got a luny here.”
But I digress.
If we are talking about a willful killing here and not an unfortunate and terrible accident involving someone who really has no idea that human beings exist, that he exists or that the world exists, I say that person should receive the due punishment of the law. I have little sympathy for a man who thinks the devil is giving him secret messages, and thus he murders four people. He may be insane but he knows what he’s doing and is culpable. He should be executed. Charles Manson was delusional, but he was also evil and knew what he was doing.
Regarding the mentally retarded, again I would have to be absolutely convinced that this person is in a vegetative mental state, and the deaths were the result of an accident, for me to let them off.
But again, these people are guilty of a crime, unlike in forced euthanasia where they are simply living beyond their usefulness to the state/society.
The picture has no racial connotation for me whatsoever. Your comment was the first time I have even considered what race the baby in the picture might be. I was poking some fun at a political philosophy, that is all.
That’s really a poor analogy mainly because my words don’t carry the same weight as words from a book considered being divinely inspired. Secondly, no one in his or her right mind would take such a leap from what I said… One might become skeptical maybe, but start burning books?
On the other hand here’s a verse in the bible that condone slavery:
“When a slave owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property” (Exodus 21:20-21).
On women:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Trust me there’s a lot more…
Your premise:
If someone attempts to stand in the place of God and take it, it is the government’s duty, in order to enact justice, to execute that person after a fair trial and due process.
In order to conclude that:
The death penalty in response to murder is a principle that is older than the Old Testament.
You use the premise that it’s the duty of government to do the duty of god, which is to execute murderers. And you use the word “principle” in your conclusion to once again signify the duty of god.
In a nutshell, your are justifying capital punishment because this is what you believe god wants from government; Aren’t you?
Here you are willing to admit to the fact that: “Yes, in fact the mentally retarded are executed in some states.”
But, you go on to make the distinction that as long as crime is involve, then it’s right for government to kill the mentally retarded and insane. Of course, this is what god would want?
Although you may not believe that was euthanasia. Euthanasia is the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of the hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.
So you see the example of djp’s father is euthanasia because it’s permitting the death of a “hopelessly sick” individual in a painless way for mercy.
Lol…plausible deniability…
Nevertheless, the crying baby DOES relay that the party is a bunch of whiners in a humerous way to the very least. Furthermore, I suspect the person that put together that “seal” knew exactly what they were doing when they put that picture in the seal.
Honestly though, I could care less about the avatar and don’t feel the need to waste anymore time discussing it.
I’m pro-choice it is a hard choice because there are almost as many reasons for me to be pro-life as there are to be pro-infanticide (that’s what it is) I’m not pro-choice because I think it’s right to kill a human being. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe killing babies no matter how small. I think it’s an evil nasty mean thing to snuff out the life of a child. However, I don’t think that legislation is the answer. If abortion were made illegal, women would be going down to neighborhood “expects” would use dangerous techniques (wire hangers anyone?) that lead to serious damage or even death of the woman. though it is obvious that a law against abortion would severely decrease the amount of abortees in the U.S. it would not, could not end abortion entirely.
My primary belief is that life is in essence contrast good days and bad days, pleasure and pain and to deny someone life is to deny them happiness pleasure and joy. However, A dead person can’t really be sad or feel pain, can they? In my opinion, it is wrong to say that killing an ant is evil because you are ending a life. What makes us human is our ability to attach abstract and meaningless opinions to everyday cause and effect. The most primal of such abstract opinions were probably instincts based on food and sex. Sex is ment to feel good so that we do it a lot, beauty is an instinct ment to help us find the mates with the best survival traits, and sugary foods taste good because sugar has a lot of energy. And from those primal instincts have risen our ideas of Good, Evil, Sadness, and Joy. I think that evil is a necessary facet of joy.
Danm, if there is ever a time to say, “but I digress” it’d be after that paragraph…
Anyway, fetus’s don’t have an understanding of good, or bad, so I don’t think it’s CRUEL to kill them. I do, however, think that it is wrong to keep a being from having a contrast-filled life, which is why I think it’s bad to kill a baby. and finally women will do it anyway, so it’s best to have a safe environment in which for them to have abortions, otherwise women will die or suffer needlessly.
Palmtag it’s really a complicated issue, isn’t it. Some of the things that you stated are the reasons why I am ambivalent when it comes to abortions. If you ask most people, I don’t think anyone would personally think arbitrary abortion is good.
Nevertheless, most people realize the complication of the issue and don’t want to go as far as having the government regulate what a women should do… Especially in the case of pregnancies that puts the mother’s health at peril or unwanted pregnancy due to rape.
However it’s incorrect to say pro-choice–>pro-infanticide. Pro-choice in the literal sense is advocating the choice for an individual to get or DON’T get an abortion. On the other hand, someone who’s pro-infanticide is someone who is for killing babies in general. Although you can argue that some pro-choicer are for infanticide you can’t say that ALL pro choicer are for infanticide just based on the word pro-choice.
scarface,
This is the argument that pro-abortion people always turn to, those cases that are truly tragic, such as rape or peril to a mother’s health. However, if people who supported abortions truly felt that those were the circumstances that warranted abortions, they would support banning them for all other case such as “inconvenience”.
The truth is most people who are pro-abortion support very little controls on the abortion procedure. The age limit is lowering, parental notification is absent, and the brutal procedure of partial birth abortions is strongly supported.
The fact is instead of looking at those cases individually and banning the procedure except in those circumstances, those supporting abortion constantly fight to broaden the scope of abortion and loosen the controls surrounding it.
Your argument makes some grand generalizations and assumptions. First of all, you say:
“most” people who are “pro-abortion support very little controls on the abortion procedure.”
What statistics do you have that samples "most.”
You go on to state:
"The age limit is lowering, parental notification is absent, and the brutal procedure of partial birth abortions is strongly supported. "
Are you sure that this is happening because people want more abortion or are they trying to protect, for instance, the rights of a young woman that is raped by her father to be allowed to make a choice about bringing a child into the world under those circumstances?
Finally, you conclude:
“The fact is instead of looking at those cases individually and banning the procedure except in those circumstances, those supporting abortion constantly fight to broaden the scope of abortion and loosen the controls surrounding it.”
Although it might be a fact that the scope is expanding, It does not necessarily support your premise, because like I said, your premise assumes that pro-choicer(s) want to expand abortion because they want to allow more fetuses to be killed.
Also, the term pro-choice is used instead of pro-abortion. “Pro-abortion” implies “for abortion” in general, while pro-choice is for the choice of abortion. The word was logically chosen for the right reason(s). I know a number of people including the presidential candidate Sen. Kerry that is personally and religiously not for abortion. But believes that the choice should be the individuals and not the government –Ala separation between church and state. People like him are truly “PRO-CHOICE” and not necessarily. “PRO-ABORTION.”
Do you see the difference?
The problem is that women will do it anyway whether or not it’s legal or justified by situations like rape and unless there are legal ways for abortion technology to be advanced and safety regulations are enforced women will die. If you make abortion illegal there can be NO controls in the medical practices.
Although you have a point Palmtag…
I suspect he might argue that most recreational drugs are illegal and there are no controls and people die because of that… Should we also make drug use legal?
Just showing you that this form of argument can take you down a path of justifying the legalization of drugs, or no speed limits, etc.
Making something legal just because people will do it anyway is RARELY a viable arguement for legalizing something.
Although we did legalize alcohol after prohibition partially for the reasons you mentioned -because people did it anyway.
It’s off-topic, but I do think that recreation drugs should be legalized. I don’t think you should make something illegal because it is a “good” or “bad” choice aka consentual crimes, I do, however, think something should be made illegal if it threatens the populus at large.
Edit: In reference to driving and alchohol those are both legal and controlled. there’s a drinking age, in most places, and speeds are restricted by law. If abortion had a speed limit, or a drinking age, then well that would be acceptable IMHO.