And there's the maddening hypocrisy of the Left. At least I'm consistent - KILL 'EM ALL!rraley said:
How many democrats
- Thread starter Bustem' Down
- Start date
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Man...
...there's a conservative in all of us, just screaming to get out!
...there's a conservative in all of us, just screaming to get out!
Larry Gude said:
It's not like I'm some liberal...but I don't see my position on that to be liberal or conservative. I see it as a matter of fairness and consistent values...I also do not like people who profess to be so concerned with abortion and then say fry all of em. That is just as hypocritical in my view.
And my positions on these matters are related to my religious beliefs so I cannot be swayed on them.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
We no longer have a way of "culling the herd". Because we have advanced so as human beings, we have side steped natural selection and abortion is just one example of this. We let life live that nature wouldn't and dispose of what nature would.Bruzilla said:
Last edited:
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
I don't consider it a living human being until it could resonably survive outside of the womb. But I''m not here to debate the philosophy of life and existance. I really think the the government should spend less time debating the legality of it, and put more pressure on the American Medical Association to make a decision based off the medical ethics of it. They really have the true power in this. They can infulence a worldwide decision through the medical channels more effectively than we could through political channels most likely.
B
Bruzilla
Guest
Bustem' Down said:
A group of advanced human beings down here in Jacksonville has spent well over a million tax payer dollars keeping alive a child (a Navy dependent) who was born without most of her skull. She can't see, can't really eat, barely hears, and her "face" from the eyebrows down is just a big, dark, hole. They've been spending a fortune trying to make her look somewhat normal, but all they can do is some cosmetic work, nothing that will really make her life better.
So, we're paying a fortune to keep alive a child with no hope of a decent life, for the sake of her parents... just as we do for thousands of other kids who shouldn't have made it past year one. Is that really advanced, or stupid?
Looking back at the crimes that used to warrant a swift execution in this country, if the same rules applied now we would have fewer murders, car thefts, robberies, rapes, and even insurance fraud (barrotry). But we have advanced to the point where most of these crimes warrant probation. Is that really advanced or stupid?
We haven't advanced... we've just gotten more forgiving and sentimental. Nice attributes but they come with a pretty hefty pricetag.
ylexot said:
This is how I see it...abortion kills people and the death penalty kills people...I believe in the value of all life, whether it be the life of an unborn child or the life of a convicted criminal. Both were created by their maker and were placed in this world for a purpose...it is not our place to take away the lives of either ones of these entities.
Something has been overlooked in this discussion of abortion, the Scott Peterson case. This case has set precedence that the killing of an unborn child is murder and punishable as such.
I believe that the advancement of medical science is generally a good thing. The ethics of when to use or not use those advances has not advanced. Just because it is technically feasible to do something does not mean it should be done. For example, it is ridiculous to give drugs to a pregnant mother to prevent a miscarriage since that is nature "culling the heard" as it was put. Often those non miscarried children are very handicapped. Some are not, and in those case, I guess the treatment was a good thing, but in general, human intervention often messes things up.
I believe that the advancement of medical science is generally a good thing. The ethics of when to use or not use those advances has not advanced. Just because it is technically feasible to do something does not mean it should be done. For example, it is ridiculous to give drugs to a pregnant mother to prevent a miscarriage since that is nature "culling the heard" as it was put. Often those non miscarried children are very handicapped. Some are not, and in those case, I guess the treatment was a good thing, but in general, human intervention often messes things up.
I would discuss this with you using Biblical text as the authority, but this is the wrong forum for that. Suffice it to say that scripture does not agree with you.rraley said:
I have been asked not to "beat people with the Bible" in the open forums nor will I get into the merits of tradition as opposed to scripture here in the Politics forum. It is not the place. If you care to go to the Religion forum, we can have at it.rraley said:
For the record, I don't consider simply answering a question to be "beating people with the Bible".2ndAmendment said:
It is my understanding that the OT is all for capital punishment, whereas Jesus says you're supposed to turn the other cheek.
That's not a good comparison. It's like saying that drowning newborn puppies and putting down a rabid dog are the same thing.rraley said:
vraiblonde said:
Well put!
vraiblonde said:
I understand your opinion, but my opinion is based on a deep sense of values and beliefs in me...life, in all of its forms, must be respected...that rabid dog was once a newborn puppy; we must seek to see the good in every person. To sign off, not a sermon, just a thought...
:speechless:rraley said:
No conflict with you. I'm just trying to keep the Bible discussions in the Religion forum. Jesus said that we were not to judge, but he also saidvraiblonde said:
Carrying out the penalties for breaking the law is "Caesar's" (the government's) purview.
Here is the link. http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?p=816385#post816385