Right And Wrong Is Not Political

   There has been much talk as of late about unity and compromise. It has been in relation to the differing factions of the GOP.   The question seems to revolve around whether the more conservative faction of the GOP should be willing to compromise their conservative principles. The more liberal faction within the GOP would tell us that the only way to win elections, is to give in to the Democrats on key issues. Such as social issues.   I have never made any apologies for my focus on social issues. I have stated time and time again that I feel that to ignore the pressing issues facing society, is to leave society to those who would see it ruined. That all issues are of equal importance. That all issues can be solved by applying conservative principles.    Those within the GOP who state their fiscal conservative creds, but who are willing to allow the Democrats and fellow liberals to carry the day on social issues, will tell us to drop these issues, to not choose candidates based on their stand on these issues.   The number one issue facing society in my view is abortion. If a society is willing to allow the murder of its most innocent, then what hope is there for the rest of us? If we will not protect those who cannot protect themselves, then who would protect us? If we make worthless these innocents, then we make ourselves worthless also.   Many have asked me why I am so unwilling to make a political compromise on this issue. Because I do not see it as a political issue. Though many do. It should never have been one, but the Supreme Court of the United States decided to whore itself out, when it decided that the taking of life could be considered a constitutional right.   Abortion  is not a question of politics, but a question of right and wrong. How as a society can we on the one hand have laws declaring that murder is a crime, and on the other hand give the power of life and death to women, who in many cases are not in their right minds due to the stresses of their situation.   We are a society of laws. But those laws must have a sense of consistency. If the taking of life is wrong in any case, then it is wrong in all cases. And before someone ask the inevitable question, yes I consider myself pro capital punishment. But I would gladly ban capital punishment if it would save the life of even one of the innocent babies lost to abortion.   We have seen monsters who prey on children, such as former doctor Bradley. Who among us would not say that he is sick. That he deserves the most severe of punishments. Though he has not killed, he has destroyed the lives of so many. Would anyone argue that he should be allowed to do such a thing again?   All too often we have witnessed mothers who kill their young children after birth. In most cases the defense is some sort of mental illness. And of course how can anyone but think that any mother able to kill their child, is not suffering from some sickness?   So how do we as  a society differentiate between a mother who kills her child after birth, from those mothers who kill their child before birth? In both cases the child is just as dead. In both cases the mother made the so called choice to kill the child. So what is it that determines whether a murdering mother will face a court of law for smothering her child, or simply going home to recover from having her child vacuumed from her womb? Society!   It has become socially acceptable to have a child vacuumed from your womb. We have accepted the idea that a woman has the right to kill a child in this manner, yet still hold a mother who smothers her child accountable to the law. Why?   I truly can’t answer why, because I can’t understand anyone who would murder the most innocent among us.   Let me return to my original point. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a question of right and wrong. Even the most ardent pro-abortion advocate must understand that abortion is wrong. And should be avoided at all cost. We can talk of education to reduce the number of abortions. We can debate abstinence over birth control. But at the end of the day, it will always be a question of right and wrong.   Those on the pro-life side of the debate are forced to work within the political system to attempt to turn the ever rising tide of abortion, because we allowed it to become political with the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade . We must attempt to right the wrong.  So when those within the GOP, who feel that abortion is an issue that does not deserve its equal place at the party table, ask those like myself to compromise. Remember this, it is a matter of right and wrong, and there can be no compromise on right and wrong. For if we compromise right for wrong, what is left for us to live by?  

98 thoughts on “Right And Wrong Is Not Political”

  1. It’s more than that, kavips. The financial Republicans flourished for a long time by manipulating the social ones. That has gotten out of hand and, in the view of the fiscal Republicans, the inmates have taken over the asylum.

    What’s weirder is that the social ones seem to have come with a set of fiscal ideas that are also scaring the heck out of the genuine fiscal Republicans, who have always been part of the “how do we make this work” consensus, and not the “how do we burn this thing down” pitchfork crowd.

  2. To all the abortion warriors: It’s nice that you love fetus-Americans, but that’s not the point. I couldnt’ care less how much you love the little zygotes, just as you don’t care about the things I prioritize.

    The point is that you’ve finally all acknowledged — after months of pretending that your anger at “moderates” is based on some sort of fairness principle — that what really motivates you in the political sphere is hatred of abortion.

    There’s nothing wrong with that. But until you recognize the root of your problem — the fact that your priority is not the same as that of the “moderate” Republicans — you cannot solve it. You fulminate about how moderates don’t have principles, etc. What you really mean is that they don’t love fetus-Americans as much as you do, and you resent the fact that they consider the issue a political loser.

  3. Yeah I know, I’m a Principal in my company and I still it get wrong all the time but once you punch the submit button there is no opportunity for correction!

  4. No where in my post, nor my comments, have I excused the woman from guilt for having an abortion. After all, don’t the supporters of abortion say that it is the woman’s “choice”?
    I have asked those who support abortion to decribe the difference they see between a mother who smothers her child and one who has her child vacuumed out of her womb. Both children are just as dead. But our legal system is currently set up to allow vacuuming, but not smothering as a form of abortion.
    Also currently, because the Supreme Court felt the need to legislate from the bench, on demand abortion is legal. If in the future there were more stringent rules for obtaining an abortion, then yes I would hope that the doctor and or the woman who self aborted a child would be held to the same legal standards. The same as a person who shoots a man to death is held to the same legal standard as a woman who stabs someone to death.
    The same as we hold mothers who stick their newborn in a micro-wave oven and turn it on to the same legal standard of any other murder, so then we would have to hold a mother who chose a coat hanger to kill her child, to the same legal standard of murder.
    Now to this question of moderates and abortion. What is a moderate position on abortion? “I support a woman’s right to choose, but feel really bad about it”. That is a political position on an issues of right and wrong. You cannot, no matter how you try, decide right and wrong based on political calculations.
    Geezer says, “I am in no position to tell you why “abortion is right.” It is not my position to tell anyone else when “abortion is right.” Nor is it yours.” Okay Geezer, so are you saying you support something for no reason other than your political calculations? To support something so heinous, without being able to explain your support, is a very weak position. I and others have given our reasons for being opposed to abortion. Yet you seem to be able to blindly support the taking of life, that you seem to hold no value for, and have no reason.
    How about this for a solution. How about we put the question of abortion up for a national referendum? How do you think that would go Geezer? Do you think that a majority of Americans support abortion to the point that they would vote to keep the current system of abortion on demand? Or would they vote for a more stringent system?

  5. I’m not the least bit interested in debating abortion. I have explained my position; there’s nothing more to explain. Life begins when brain activity does, and ends when brain activity ceases. That’s it. Beyond that, when you put the question in the political sphere, it is not an issue of morality. The law isn’t about whether abortion is right or wrong; it’s about the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the woman bearing it. That’s why, when you say abortion is murder, you’re not speaking after careful thought. You’re reacting on emotion. In point of fact, abortion has never been treated as murder, not even in the Old Testament.

    If you really want to know what the public thinks about abortion, Frank, look it up. You’ll find that a majority supports abortion being legal in the first three months and a majority supports banning it during the last three months. You’ll find a majority supports exceptions for the life and health of the mother. Indeed, it might behoove you, if you’re going to treat abortion as a political issue, to look someone other than your own conscience before speaking.

  6. Geezer, you keep re-writing my post. I am the one who said it is not a political question. It is you and others who say that it is, based on political calculations.
    If you are not interested in debating abortion, why are you commenting here, since the post is about abortion? You have stated your feeling that the first stage of life, conception, is not really life. This is again a political calculation, since your definition of life cannot take place until after conception has taken place. And who is to say when brain activity actually begins. Have you considered that we just do not pocess the technology to measure the very earliest brain activity? Of course not, because you seem to put your faith in man and his technology.
    And could you lead me to the verse and chapter of the Old Testament that condones abortion, that one seems to have slipt my mind.
    And can I assume that you would be in favor of allowing a national referendum.

  7. What’s the difference what I think about a national referendum? There is no Constitutional mechanism for holding one. If you’re going to talk about abortion in a political context, wouldn’t it helped if you knew something about the Constitution?

    “You have stated your feeling that the first stage of life, conception, is not really life.”
    Are you this dense, or do you just not read carefully? I was talking about the legal definition of life, not the biological definition. You do realize there’s a difference, don’t you?

    “This is again a political calculation, since your definition of life cannot take place until after conception has taken place.”
    So what? Are you claiming a zygote or blastocyst has a soul? If so, how do you know?

    “And who is to say when brain activity actually begins.”

    Neurologists.

    “Have you considered that we just do not pocess the technology to measure the very earliest brain activity? Of course not, because you seem to put your faith in man and his technology.”

    I don’t put “faith” in them. Science does not work by “faith.” And, contrary to your research-free contention, we certainly do possess the technology to know what happens during fetal development. Look it up sometime.

    “could you lead me to the verse and chapter of the Old Testament that condones abortion, that one seems to have slipt my mind.”

    It didn’t “slip your mind.” You just don’t know what you’re reading. I was incorrect about the book, though: It’s Exodus, not Leviticus:

    “And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” Exodus 21:22-25

    If it were murder, it could not be settled by a payment.

  8. Frank, I will make this as simple as I can in the hopes that you’ll comprehend it:

    A “moderate” can dislike abortion just as much as you do without thinking it should be the top political priority of the GOP to make it illegal. Until you understand that — and stop attacking those who might share you beliefs but not your priorities — you will be ignored, and rightfully so, by people who have won a lot more elections than you will ever take part in.

  9. Here’s a perfect illustration of the inability of some people to flunk basic reading comprehension:

    I wrote,
    “abortion has never been treated as murder, not even in the Old Testament.”

    You responded,
    “could you lead me to the verse and chapter of the Old Testament that condones abortion”

    I never said it “condoned abortion.” I said it was not “treated as murder.” There’s a difference. Murder is not the only form of homicide, and a law-obsessed people like the ancient Jews were well aware of that. Too bad you aren’t.

  10. Geezer, #56 if you don’ t protect the very life of the most vulnerable in society, what other values can you possibly have?

    If you flunk that one, you’ve pretty much flunk everything else too.

    Put another way, a person who will murder a helpless life pretty much has no integrity or morality on anything else, either.

  11. kavips wrote in #48: “Two types of Republicans… financial and social.. They are in that party for two separate reasons…”

    Actually, there are 3 types of Republicans: (1) those who stand for nothing and use the excuse of pretending to be fiscal conservatives to avoid admitting they are really liberals, which they are afraid to admit (2) fiscal conservatives, and (3) social conservatives

  12. Okay Geezer, since you are smarter than everyone else, I shouldn’t have to spell it out for you, but I will. The constitutional mechanism for a national referendum, would be a constitutional amendment.Sorry if my language is too complicated for you. Look it up,it’s in the Constitution.
    Now to your point of when life begins, you say,” I was talking about the legal definition of life, not the biological definition.” This again proves that you are more concerned with politics than you are with life. In your statement you admit that biological life begins at conception, but you bow to government about something that government has no control over.
    “Are you claiming a zygote or blastocyst has a soul? If so, how do you know?” I don’t know, but I do know that unless something interferes, that they will become a child with a soul.
    “I don’t put “faith” in them. Science does not work by “faith.” And, contrary to your research-free contention, we certainly do possess the technology to know what happens during fetal development. ” No Geezer we only know what we know, we don’t know, what we don’t know (Don Rumsfeld). You are putting your faith in the science of the day to be able to tell you what you want to here. Again, what I know and what you know is that without something interfering, that conception will grow to be a thinking living child and person.
    Now Geezer up until this point all will notice that it was you that brought the word of God into the discussion. You quoted Exodus 21:22-25. Not sure which modern day Bible you got that wording from, but if you will go to the King James version you will find it worded slightly different. Of course it then makes my point and not yours. It reads as follows;
    ” 22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

    23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,

    24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

    25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”
    Now it says, “so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow” this means that the baby is born, but does not die and is not injured, then a fine is enough according to the husband.
    It goes on to say, “23And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, “. This means that if the fruit departs from the woman and dies or is injured, then a life must be given for that life. Now that sounds to me like they are treating it as murder. It also sounds as if they do not condone the taking of innocent life. It doesn’t even have to have been intentional.
    Please feel free to rewrite the Bible anytime you feel the need to look the fool.
    I will not respond to your #56 comment because you again attempt to justify the murders according to a political calculation.

  13. I would have to correct the definition of conservative. There is only one kind. Anyone who fractures conservatism is weakening it and is no conservative.

  14. “The constitutional mechanism for a national referendum, would be a constitutional amendment.Sorry if my language is too complicated for you. Look it up,it’s in the Constitution.”

    So just to hold a referendum on this one issue, you would amend the Constitution. You would have to, of course, as fetuses do not currently enjoy full human rights.

    “a person who will murder a helpless life pretty much has no integrity or morality on anything else, either.”

    I thought you were a lawyer, Jon. Don’t you know the legal definition of murder? Abortion doesn’t qualify. Just as it didn’t in ancient Israel.

    Frank, either drop the moral outrage or drop the argument. If you can’t discuss it rationally, don’t discuss it at all.

  15. David, Frank and Don,
    I have my views on abortion — I support the right for a woman to choose (but I don’t support it being used as birth control, nor do I support late-term or partial-birth abortions). I think that Sen. Coons said it best during the debates: abortions should be “safe, legal and rare.”
    Now, I have a question to ask to add to this discussion: do my friends out there who oppose abortion support sex education in schools (let’s not debate the grade level, per se, but the concept) and the use of condoms and birth control?
    My point of asking this is to see if there is room for an honest discussion of the topic. Saying that abortion is abysmal and murder and an intrinsic evil and every other invective you can hurl is great, but it is hollow rhetoric.
    In my experience, many of the same people who oppose abortion oppose sex education and birth control. This is where I fail to understand the disconnect: people hate abortions and want to reduce/eliminate them, but refuse to support methods that would have a huge impact in preventing unwanted pregnancies (and thus cutting down on the number of abortions).
    While not a great comparison, look at how cities use police: they want to cut down on crime, so they hire more cops and concentrate them in problem areas to deter crime from happening. Of course, the easiest solution is for people to just not commit crimes, but expecting society to comply with an unrealistic ideal is foolish and even dangerous.
    So, is there room in this “right or wrong” debate for some middle ground?

  16. No, there isn’t TSS.
    Frank will not address the overarching irony of the title of this thread, in which he states that “right and wrong is not political” while supporting a specific political measure – making abortion illegal – as the only way of advancing right over wrong.

    Frank, is it wrong to be an atheist? Does it then follow that it should be illegal to be an atheist?

    The battle over right and wrong is not fought in legislatures. It is fought in the hearts and minds of people. Your starting point is that anyone who disagrees with you lacks integrity or is otherwise evil and stupid.

    Do you know what atheists don’t get to do? They don’t get to revel in the satisfaction that those who disagree with them are going to Hell. That is a pleasure peculiar to Christians.

  17. “do my friends out there who oppose abortion support sex education in schools” ?

    You mean, do we support sex education being done really badly? Is that what you are asking?

    How about sex education not in schools — as in done well?

    WELL, let me answer your question:

    I changed from pro-choice on abortion to Pro-Life, heck I’ll say anti-abortion, because of a sex education class in a government funded state school, which was based on the planned parenthood curriculum.

    I took a course to fill out some credits among my Finance Degree “Human Sexuality” at a state university (government).

    The course tried to tear down traditional values and morals, ridicule traditional or religious views of sex, idolize promiscuous societies as better than traditional American / European cultures, and promote abortion as a good thing.

    But as soon as the course taught the details of abortion, I immediately recognized “THAT’S MURDER!”

    I was simultaneously taking Organic Chemistry so that I understood what saline does to a living organism. The balance of salt is critical. A living being works very hard to keep its salt level in balance.

    SO I immediately recognized that a saline abortion is poisoning a living being. If the same concentration of salt were injected into you right now, you would fall over dead.

    So it dawned on me that abortion = murder. You don’t poison things that aren’t living. Poison only affects living things.

    I wanted to believe in abortion as an easy answer to reduce girls’ hesitation about having sex freely. I did not want to face what I was seeing.

    But I was forced to admit that abortion is murder.

    And your government-funded, Planned Parenthood, sex education courses turned me into a Pro-Life activists. Just the facts, Ma’am.

  18. Abortion might be homicide, Jon, but it is not “murder” until the law is changed to make it so. Again, it’s surprising that a lawyer wouldn’t know the difference. Or, given that the lawyer in question is you, maybe not so surprising.

  19. I believe that the use of condoms and certain birth controls can reduce the number of abortions therefore I support their use. I do not think they get to the root of much of the problem which is the broken morality of the sexual revolution, but they are a whole lot better than broken families or abortion. That is my position.

    I know some prefer to deal with only with the core problem and I respect that position, but I do not believe we can afford the social mess of millions of more children growing up without functional families and millions more abortions while we deal with the root cause over a generation. We must mitigate the harm as much as we can while we deal with the real problem.

  20. It’s interesting how discussions of abortion always seem to devolve to discussions of teen pregnancy, when teens do not account for the majority of abortions.

    Take a look at the age distribution of those obtaining abortions from 2007 (a chart that was handy in the Google machine):

    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=464&cat=10

    Ages Up to 19 17%
    Ages 20-29 57%
    Ages 30-39 23%
    Ages 40 and Above 3%

    Women age 19 and above account, by far, for the majority of abortions. Women over 30 account for more abortions than women under 19.

    The data simply does not support the assumption which people buy into – for no reason at all – that abortion is somehow a “teen issue”.

    If the solution is “get teens to quit having sex” then you are missing the population that accounts by the overwhelming majority of abortions. And that is just another instance of how some people do not quite grasp the idea of identifying a perceived problem, looking at the actual data, and then determining a route to solving the problem. What these things degenerate into is simply another lever to confirm existing opinions and beliefs, regardless of what the data actually shows. That is a recipe for public policy insanity.

    But, as long as the issue of teen pregnancy has been raised, how do you account for the fact that Europe has a remarkably lower teen pregnancy rate than the United States, and they do not have a significant political faction promoting “abstinence education” as the solution to teen pregnancy?

  21. Frank will not address the overarching irony of the title of this thread, in which he states that “right and wrong is not political” while supporting a specific political measure – making abortion illegal – as the only way of advancing right over wrong.

    Right and wrong is not political, it’s spiritual. But just as your language and metaphysical thoughts can change what happens in your brain, leaders whose claims are spiritual can change what happens in the body politic. See the Great Awakening, the inherently spiritual claims of the civil rights movement, the Church as the conscience of the nation, etc.etc. But given that you apparently do not believe that spiritual things exist you probably cannot understand the principle of separation and liberty in conscience or labor. If you are an atheist then you will tend toward a totally physical view or totalitarianism based on “science” instead.

    Frank, is it wrong to be an atheist? Does it then follow that it should be illegal to be an atheist?

    It’s ironic on many levels that you’re trying to imagine that he is in some sense a totalitarian. If anything he probably takes the principle of separation too far and perhaps never turns back to try to find a more perfect union between the spiritual and the political. You actually seem to be imagining that he is like you. Ironically atheists will be the first to find reasons to make religions that they disagree with illegal. If history is any measure it will be portrayed as downright scientific too. It seems that atheists tend to have little regard for the value of liberty when it comes to the spirit of the conscience. Little wonder, since most deny that spiritual things exists.

    The battle over right and wrong is not fought in legislatures. It is fought in the hearts and minds of people.

    What is the atheistic view of the hearts and minds of people?

    Do you know what atheists don’t get to do? They don’t get to revel in the satisfaction that those who disagree with them are going to Hell. That is a pleasure peculiar to Christians.

    The fact that you consider that a peculiar pleasure being denied to you probably says more about a peculiarly sadisitic mentality than anything.

  22. 69 Geezer: Abortion might be homicide, Jon, but it is not “murder” until the law is changed to make it so.

    You are using two different connotations or meanings of the word.

    As a legal term of art, yes, one cannot be charged with the crime of murder (or variations thereof manslaughter, etc.) if the law permits it.

    For example, if I shot someone in the heart from 2 feet away it is not “murder” if they broke into my home at 3 AM and I felt threatened. Although I could have shot and killed someone, the law does not call that murder because it is legally allowed.

    If a soldier is a sniper and kills an enemy soldier in war time at 500 yards in cold blood, unprovoked, and out of the blue, that is not murder because it is legally authorized.

    Yet in non-legal settings, the word murder — like thousands of other words — has a different connotation in every day life.

  23. Okay Geezer, step down off of your highchair and take my hand. What I am saying is that we could work to pass an amendment, which would be a referendum on abortion. Are we clear now?
    Geezer says,”Frank, either drop the moral outrage or drop the argument. If you can’t discuss it rationally, don’t discuss it at all.” Geezer again shows that he see this as only a political question. Also I notice he did not address his own biblical mistake that I corrected for him. Not surprising.
    TSS, first it would clearly matter at what age the government wanted to teach sex education, it would also matter what was being taught. Such as, would there be any talk of abstinence, would there be talk of homosexuality and the dangers of such behaviour? As for birth control, I have no problem with teaching about birth control, I do have a problem with schools handing it out, without parental notification. But to answer your question there is room for compromise on those issues. As I stated in my original post. So to nitpicker who says otherwise, I would suggest he go back and re-read the post.
    I would also point out that my other point that liberals and the so called moderates are unwilling to compromise on this issue also. The difference being, I and those who feel as I do hold our ground based on our feeling that to kill babies at the rate we currently are is distructive to our society. The liberals and moderates hold their ground due to political calculations.
    Now to address Nitpickers point that I am discussing a political solution to what I myself have described as a non political issue. Again Nitpicker go back and read the post and the comments. You will see that I have stated that it was made into a political issue by the liberals and the run away Supreme Court. So that means to correct the mistake I and others are forced to work within the political system to correct the mistake. Then we can address the other options that TSS spoke of.

  24. Further on the subject of teen pregnancy, David, please consider this map:

    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=37&cat=2

    How do you account for the fact that “liberal” Northeast states have lower teen pregnancy rates than the teen pregnancy leaders of Mississippi, Texas, and other more “conservative” southern states?

    But, again, the issue of “abortion” is separate from the issue of “teen pregnancy”, since teens account for only 17% of abortions. So, why does this discussion inevitably devolve to that 17% and everyone’s favorite pet theory about sex education?

  25. “What is the atheistic view of the hearts and minds of people?”

    Well, gee mynm, while I expect that atheists have a range of opinions on anything, just like everyone else, I am sure that atheists believe that people have opinions and feelings. And I understand that your ilk is much more interested in condemning others in favor of seeking to change their minds.

    “The fact that you consider that a peculiar pleasure being denied to you probably says more about a peculiarly sadisitic mentality than anything.”

    I have no idea where you get to that point, as I am not an atheist. However, it is clearly evident from your posts here that confirming your sanctity and condemning others is the thrust of what constitutes your faith in action.

  26. But, as long as the issue of teen pregnancy has been raised, how do you account for the fact that Europe has a remarkably lower teen pregnancy rate than the United States, and they do not have a significant political faction promoting “abstinence education” as the solution to teen pregnancy?

    Perhaps it is possible to drug the Herd or find some way around the spiritual side of man through the animal side of things. In this case, at some point they probably won’t be able to afford providing the pill to everyone and so on.

    Like the progressives of old who wanted to sterilize the Herd and plan their parenthood that way, it all depends on what goal all this “progress” is directed at. Is it directed toward a person who can govern themselves and their passions so that they can live life at liberty as a person? For all its real and imagined failures, that is the American way.

    In any case, there might be feral Europeans but at least their birthrate is low due to new herding techniques.

  27. “What I am saying is that we could work to pass an amendment, which would be a referendum on abortion. Are we clear now?”

    You were clear before. I’m pointing out that it’s incredibly stupid and destructive to change our system of government to a direct democracy just because you think it would enable you to make abortion illegal.

    “Also I notice he did not address his own biblical mistake that I corrected for him. Not surprising.”

    I did address it. Are you illiterate? I said abortion (in this case, miscarriage caused by outside action) was not considered murder, as murder was not something you could settle with a payment of damages.

    “Yet in non-legal settings, the word murder — like thousands of other words — has a different connotation in every day life.”

    Yes, it’s an incendiary word meaning “homicide.” Glad you acknowledge that you were using the word not in a legal context — which is the only context we can consider it in as a political issue — but as a propagandistic term. Rare attack of honesty on your part.

  28. I have no idea where you get to that point, as I am not an atheist.

    I was talking about you, not some atheist. I get to that point because you said: They don’t get to revel in the satisfaction that those who disagree with them are going to Hell. That is a pleasure peculiar to Christians. based on sadistic assumptions or a Sadean philosophy. Are there other peculiar pleasures being denied to you? And in any case, wouldn’t these peculiar pleasures that you imagine Christians take in imagining things be “utterly harmless” in your mind, just like pornography? (Link)

    However, it is clearly evident from your posts here that confirming your sanctity and condemning others is the thrust of what constitutes your faith in action.

    You probably assume that because you think of condemning others as another pleasure that is being denied to you, so you assume that’s what I’m doing too. It matters little.

  29. I said abortion (in this case, miscarriage caused by outside action) was not considered murder, as murder was not something you could settle with a payment of damages.

    It was considered manslaughter: “Although the death penalty was mandatory for premeditated murder, the penalty for manslaughter was not so strict. The killer could flee to a city of refuge, make financial restitution to the victim’s family, and eventually resume normal life.”
    (The Torah and Self-Defense by David B. Kopel)

    Your example is actually evidence that they thought of the unborn as their equals. If they did not then there would not have been an equal penalty for the unintentional killing of the unborn.

  30. My point was that abortion was not considered murder. I never said anything else. Those who want it to be murder are not following the Biblical example. That is all.

  31. “You probably assume that because you think of condemning others as another pleasure that is being denied to you, so you assume that’s what I’m doing too. It matters little.”

    Umm… no. I was referring to the attitude of some Christians, such as yourself, who take obvious pleasure in condemning others. My reference to atheists, you will notice, is in the third person as in “what atheists don’t get to do”, and not “us atheists”.

    Observing that Christians of your ilk offer nothing but condemnation, judgment and sanctimony, does not require the observer to be an atheist.

  32. Geezer, for someone who so often mocks others as being stupid, you certainly are having a hard time following simple conversation. I am not saying to pass an amendment that would set up a referendum system. I am saying to go through the process of passing an amendment on abortion. I was using the word referendum as in the sense of “the amendment was a referendum on abortion”. Get it? WOW!
    And you are wrong on your biblical quote. You put forth a quote with modern wording that seems to make your point. I gave you the text from King James that controdicts your point. Why don’t you give us a link to the text and source of your quote. Here is one for mine http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21&version=KJV
    If you need it explained to you again, please return to my comment #63. I would add that abortion is not an accidental death, it is the intentional killing of a child. How is that not murder? There is quite a bit of fore thought that goes into most abortions. To ignore when you are wrong only makes you case weaker. When you read the King James version it is clear that they saw it as murder, that is why the required a life for a life. And that was in the case of causing an accidental misscarriage.
    Nitpicker, it was a commentator TSS who brought up sex education. I personally do not seperate one abortion from another based on age of the mother. All abortions result in the same thing. The death of a child.

  33. So you want the Constitution of the United States of America to address abortion specifically?

  34. “All abortions result in the same thing. The death of a child.”

    As does the lack of access to health care for women generally…

    U.S. Infant Mortality Rate Worse Than in 40 Other Countries
    August 31, 2011 1:41 PM EDT

    Babies born in the United States have a higher chance of dying in their first month than babies in much of the developed world, according to a new report on infant mortality rates.

    America made strides in the last two decades, but because it curtailed infant mortality rates by 26 percent, or less than the average drop, the United States now lags behind 40 other countries including Lithuania, Israel and Cuba. American newborns die at about the same rate as in Qatar, Croatia and the United Arab Emirates.
    ——

    We are the 40th worst country at keeping infants alive.

    Got a constitutional amendment to fix that one?

  35. The language of the King James version bears only passing resemblance to modern English. Check with your buddy Don, the English major.

    I’m not doing your homework for you, Frank. The point is that the death of a fetus was a lesser offense than the death of a person who had been born. Of course, I realize that people who have been told that their particular sect holds the only key to universal truth cannot be open to the possibility that perhaps some other sect, which believes the same thing, is actually right and you’re wrong (the greater likelihood is that you’re both wrong, but see if you can handle the first circumstance before you trouble yourself with the second possibility). But I try anyway, in the hope that someday you will be able to understand that the way you see the world is not the only possible way to see it.

  36. The point is that the death of a fetus was a lesser offense than the death of a person who had been born.

    No, it was the same in the case of manslaughter which shows that they considered it the same. Which is only logical given that each unborn human is an individual human life. The fact that wandering nomads understood this thousands of years ago shows that this isn’t a matter of science/knowledge despite the way everyone plays pretend about it. Instead it results from the fact that people want and choose to kill their offspring.

  37. I was referring to the attitude of some Christians, such as yourself, who take obvious pleasure in condemning others.

    Oh, I see… so it turns out that Christians are the sadistic perverts. It’s a good thing you’re not a pervert though. But like I said, as long as they’re just imagining hell and so on isn’t that just as “utterly harmless” as the spirit of the sadistic perversions that you refuse to condemn? So why do you refuse to condemn on the one hand but not on the other?

  38. Infant mortality is a pressing problem. We already give nutrition, medical, and helpful education to pregnant mothers. The problem is that we have too many who take drugs, refuse to eat right, and smoke. Solve that problem and we look just fine.

    If I had one solution it would be to expand rehab and detox facilities for pregnant women.

  39. But I try anyway, in the hope that someday you will be able to understand that the way you see the world is not the only possible way to see it.

    That’s ironic. If you are progressive then your view of the world is closed, “religion” and ancient forms of knowledge are close to the epistemic equivalent of superstition, etc.

  40. “If you are progressive then your view of the world is closed, “religion” and ancient forms of knowledge are close to the epistemic equivalent of superstition, etc.”

    Says who? You? Again, you don’t get to tell me what I think. As a matter of fact, I’m very open to what such traditions have to teach.

  41. Geezer, you are either blind or a fool. Or both. You read a passage that clearly states that if the death of the child results from a man’s actions, then his life will be required in place of the child’s life. Yet you attempt with modern word spins to claim that the Jewish law did not hold the child’s life as equal to that of the adults. That is not just foolish, it is sad. You will go to any length to justify a woman killing her baby.
    As for an amendment. It would not need to be specifically about abortion. But it could afirm the sanctity of all life. We have passed other amendments based on the civil rights of other groups, why should we not pass one to protect the civil rights of the most innocent among us.
    We have laws against the abuse of children, yet many among us, such as Geezer, have no problem turning their blind eye towards the millions of lives lost to the slaughter house mentallity of abortion on demand.
    Nitpicker brings up an important point about infant mortallity. And while that is tragic also, it has no bearing on the discussion of abortion. The fact that babies are dying due to a lack of health care, in many case because they do not seek it, does not change or lessen the effect abortion has on society. Nitpicker, are you saying we should neglect the millions of aborted babies, because of the thousands who die from lack of health care? Aren’t they all precious? Or was your comment only to distract?

  42. “Or was your comment only to distract?”

    Nope, I’m just pointing out that if you want to drill holes in a piece of wood, there’s a lot of opportunity in places where the wood is thinner than in others.

  43. “As for an amendment. It would not need to be specifically about abortion. But it could afirm the sanctity of all life.”

    Really, Frank? How would such an amendment read? And congratulations for finally understanding that we are not talking about life, we are talking about rights. But how would you protect “all life”? Why are you willing to overlook the rights of the woman to protect a clump of cells (which is all you’re talking about when you talk about things like the morning-after pill).

    “We have passed other amendments based on the civil rights of other groups, why should we not pass one to protect the civil rights of the most innocent among us.”

    Because they are not citizens.

    “You will go to any length to justify a woman killing her baby.”

    I don’t have to justify it. It’s a current right that women have, and I and others will fight those like you who would seek to take it away. And, one more time, until it’s born, it’s not a “baby.” It’s a fetus, an unborn child, there are many accurate terms for it. “Baby” is not among them.

  44. I don’t have to justify it. It’s a current right that women have, and I and others will fight those like you who would seek to take it away. And, one more time, until it’s born, it’s not a “baby.” It’s a fetus, an unborn child, there are many accurate terms for it. “Baby” is not among them.

    Ah yes. People like Geezer back in the day probably said, “And one more time, until it turns white, it’s not totally ‘human.’ It’s black, subhuman, and there are more accurate terms for it. ‘Human’ is not among them.” They also hid behind the “slavery is legal” defense.

    Y’see, Geez, you’ll have most people w/you up until this point (including me). Arguing that a clump of cells isn’t a “baby” makes sense, and disposing of said clump via the Morning After Pill or such garners little popular opposition. Arguing, OTOH, that a 2nd or 3rd trimester baby isn’t a “baby” because it hasn’t exited the womb is the equivalent of covering your ears and shouting “I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!” to someone. IOW, it’s pure nonsense.

    Argue law when it suits you. Argue morals when it doesn’t.

  45. Geezer says to me, “And congratulations for finally understanding that we are not talking about life, we are talking about rights.” Ah! Geezer my friend. I am sure that the Declaration of Independence means little to a die hard liberal such as yourself. But in it we as a nation declared that
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So you see Geezer Life is a right, one that man cannot take away by having a court decide that they are not a human. So maybe an amendment isn’t needed. As Hube pointed out this was the basis for ending slavery. For a nation could not survive, half slave, half free. Actually abortion deprives that human all three of those rights, since without Life they can neither pursue happiness or experience Liberty.
    Your testimony that those clumps of cells, as you describe them, are not life or a human, is again your liberal talking point. And please explain how anyone can be given the “RIGHT” to take another’s life, and why is it only a woman’s right. Why can’t the father force a woman to abort their child, has a father no rights?

Comments are closed.