Rhuiden wrote:I believe Kerry's position on abortion is indefensible. If you believe life begins at conception, then is it not murder to kill that life. I believe it is. What say does the child have in the decision? None. Many women use abortion as a means of contraception...THIS IS WRONG!!!! If they do not want a child, give it up for adoption. Others say that life does not begin at conception so the woman is only removing a "tissue mass". HOW SAD. Look at an ultrasound of the "tissue mass" after only a few weeks and tell me what you see.
Life beginning at conception is what Kerry believes, it has not been proven as fact, anymore than every sperm is sacred has been. As for the child having no say, this is correct. But is it any less say than somebody hit by an air strike in Baghdad? Undoubtedly they are aware of the possibility of death by explosion or other means, but tossing it into the bin of "those that choose to stay in a war zone have chosen to take their chances" is a bit cold-hearted, if I may say. Do you honestly believe that every person in this war zone has the capability of safely exiting such an encompassing area, when there's a level of unrest further than their legs can carry them? With said restrictions, it hardly seems to be a choice for all.
Now, the pro-war and pro death penalty answers. It seems that you are trying to equate these things under the "You shall not murder" commandment.
By saying "how do you justify your support of somebody whom is anti abortion, yet pro war, and pro death penalty" I did not mean to equate it with any commandment or religious connotation. But knowing that for you how intertwined morality and religion are ("my position that ALL morality comes from a religious code"), I can now see how your perceptions led you to comprehend it so ("I filter everything through the teachings of the Bible"). That you realize this makes me happy.
Sorry to repost this part, but you never responded to my questions about you saying this:
I believe the Bible to be the inerrant, infallable, complete and perfect word of God.
I am not saying this is not the case, but are you referring to just the Torah (Pentetauch [Five Books of Moses]), the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), Old Testament (Christianized ordering of the Tanakh), these including the NT, or just the NT? Is there a specific translation of these which you prefer? If so, are you aware of the different MSS which make up this version, and which textual variants it places preference on, and in turn those it omits?
I do apologize if I am being a tad inquisitive or something akin to such, but I wonder how out of the many variations in the NT manuscripts, one can come to an absolute certainty as to which of these is the "complete and perfect word of God." Nevermind the synoptic problem.
In the Old Testiment, there was primarily one punishment for crimes...
And in the OT there's numerous rituals dealing with what to do after many types of offenses, and what form of sacrifice is to take place. These are one of the bloody parts of Judaism that Christianity has left behind, sometimes I forget there exist denominations that have brought vengeance along. What I read from the gospels is redemption, salvation, love. I cannot claim to have read the OT in its entirety, but extracted little of the same values I got from the gospels also out of the OT. To some, there appears to be a bit of a dichotomy. Not until you start reading the letters of Paul does one get into a more militant OT feel in the NT.
One of my favorite stories (Luke 8:27, Mark 5) concerns Legion. What I gather from these passages is that the possessed man is crazy, capable of evils, and with his encounter of Christ's driving out his demons, is set upon the right path. And when Jesus is in the market place castigating the Pharisees (Matt 23) he comes across as despising killing. No doubt our two interpretations of certain passages will have differences, based on our own world-views, and the cryptocity of what is being read. For instance, I just now realized that I have been attempting to invalidate the vengeance/violence in the OT from portions of your arguments, simply because what I follow/believe in most out of the good book are the words of Jesus Christ, not the vengeance/violence or dogma.
Also, it is not murder to kill an convicted criminal.
Merriam-Webster wrote:Main Entry: 1mur·der
Etymology: partly from Middle English murther, from Old English morthor; partly from Middle English murdre, from Old French, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English morthor; akin to Old High German mord murder, Latin mort-, mors death, mori to die, mortuus dead, Greek brotos mortal
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
So there are laws allowing for it, and there is the possibility of no "malice aforethought". Following along these lines too, would not an abortion in a state or nation where it is legal not constitute as murder? "... life begins at conception, then is it not murder to kill that life. I believe it is." Perchance, is this a bit of a double standard, allowing someone on Death Row to be executed because they have been convicted, but not allowing for removal of some tissue-mass, while buth are upheld by the law?
I also know that some say that mistakes are made and innocent people are executed. I cannot speak to that, but I know that in our justice system there are ample opportunities for a death row inmate to prove his innocence.
Proving innocence while locked up can't be that difficult.... and it won't be even harder if you're a black in texas, with a biased jury...? I believe in conclusive evidence, this is not always the case (I mentioned Gary Graham before [http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Sankofa_Shaka.htm
], I suggest you read that. What good does killing convicted criminals do for us?
I am also curious where you got your figures for the innocents killed. How do we know that those were truly innocent? The number could have been manufactured or doctored by someone to fit their agenda.
Ah, a link was provided in my previous post, but they don't always stick out with the color scheme on this board. Here is the link: http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
. Underneath where the Min/Max are listed, there is "View Database...." click on that. In the right hand column of the data, you will see the news source. We don't know that all of these people were truly innocent, I doubt that all were, but one cannot dismiss them as guilty (guilty of what?). What also, is the necessity of using explosives inside a city? On a battle field, where one could see their enemies in uniform carrying weapons, by all means do so. But in living quarters? If we knew that our weapons were hitting their intended targets without any civilian casualty, this may be acceptable, but this is not what is happening [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 75D8J1.DTL
]. Emma_85, thank you for the BBC quotage, and pointing out the already existing (yet obscure due to color schemes) link.
So you may better understand my view, I shall try to explain a few things, but cannot guarantee their comprehensibility. I do not feel abortion is right, but I am of the belief that no entity should have the power to restrict or force another into doing anything. Everybody should be responsible for their actions, and if there are negative consequences to such actions, hopefully they will learn from them. If somebody sleeps around and is impregnated, they should have the choice before anybody else what is to be done. If this person chooses to abort because they do not know who the father could be or whatever reasons they may have, let them. I do not think this is right, and that persons should be fully aware of consequences beforehand, but we all know this is not always the case with the youth of today (or even adults).
I ask you to consider a rape victim who had no intent on raising a child. Would you truly expect them to allow something that was half rapist to grow in their body, and afterwards raise it as if they wanted it?