Liberals say it is fine to kill born babies

[Cap'n Cat]

Oh, while we're on that "Just War" thing...I remember a discussion several years back between some neighbors. A couple of people, Catholics, said we should not have bombed Hiroshima...in that case there were "too many" "innocent" casualties. They babbled on about how we could have done things differently and still won the war.

Screw that. There are times when you must punish the people that support the regime that is attacking you and there are times when eliminating whole populations will...amazingly...eliminate the very people that would kil you.

God can do that...eliminate whole populations as punishment...but people can't? Just another example of the hypocrisy in religion.

I agree with those Catholics. We should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs.

One reason we did, it's been revealed in the last twenty years, is not necessarily because 100's of thousands of Allied people woulda died invading Japan, but, rather, because our wartime intelligence was so poor in Japan. Japan had been on the verge of economic and societal collapse since 1943, but, we could not get any white people in to spy (for obvious reasons) and the society was so closed and tight, we couldn't get any residents to do it, either. Thus, fear and hysteria, rather than reason and data, drove us to the bombs.

Had we been patient and cornered them in their homeland, embargoed them, we coulda waited out the inevitable which would come with little loss of Allied life.

Just my thoughts.

[89Hen]

God can do that...eliminate whole populations as punishment...but people can't? Just another example of the hypocrisy in religion.

How is that hypocrisy? Wouln't it be more hypocritical the other way around?

[YoUDeeMan]

I agree with those Catholics. We should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs.

One reason we did, it's been revealed in the last twenty years, is not necessarily because 100's of thousands of Allied people woulda died invading Japan, but, rather, because our wartime intelligence was so poor in Japan. Japan had been on the verge of economic and societal collapse since 1943, but, we could not get any white people in to spy (for obvious reasons) and the society was so closed and tight, we couldn't get any residents to do it, either. Thus, fear and hysteria, rather than reason and data, drove us to the bombs.

Had we been patient and cornered them in their homeland, embargoed them, we coulda waited out the inevitable which would come with little loss of Allied life.

Just my thoughts.

Twenty-twenty hindsight.

And we still would have lost a lot more people trying to corner them and "waiting them out". There was still fighting going on in the Pacific and our boys would have been killed unnecessarily. If your son has a bullet coming to him tomorrow and you could stop it with a bomb, you'd do it.

[YoUDeeMan]

God can do that...eliminate whole populations as punishment...but people can't? Just another example of the hypocrisy in religion.

How is that hypocrisy? Wouln't it be more hypocritical the other way around?

Do as I say, not as I do.

If murdering a whole town is bad for people, but God can do it, then how are God's actions good?

That is hypocritical.

Going back to the Just War Doctrine...it was made up as the Catholics went along...still is being tweaked. In the end, it's simply situational ethics in a can. And, it isn't God deciding who dies or what is right in that Doctrine...it relies on the Government to make that decision. Unless, of course, that government doesn't support your train of thought...then it will be OK to change the rules again to something more to one's taste.

[youngterrier]

I have always said that the real imposition of belief is on the "pro choice" side. The objective reality is that, from the point of conception, a member of our species exists. It is alive. It is Homo sapiens. But a subjective belief as to what constitutes a "person" is imposed in order to justify killing individuals at certain developmental stages as a matter of convenience.

What gives these people the right to impose their beliefs as to what a "person" is upon another member of our species in order to justify their position? I suppose "might" is the answer. Newborns are certainly in no position to defend themselves.

But I WILL say this. At least it's a move towards consistency. There never was any reason for drawing a line at birth and saying that before birth an individual has no right to live then at birth he or she does.

Oh boy, another abortion thread.

In short, it's justified because inside a woman's womb is her business, especially at earlier stages of pregnancy. It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

I'd rather just stay out of it, just as drugs, it's an impossible crime to regulate even when made illegal, you might as well make it legal and as safe as possible. Make birth control as available as possible, help prevent unplanned pregnancy.

[catamount man]

I have always said that the real imposition of belief is on the "pro choice" side. The objective reality is that, from the point of conception, a member of our species exists. It is alive. It is Homo sapiens. But a subjective belief as to what constitutes a "person" is imposed in order to justify killing individuals at certain developmental stages as a matter of convenience.

What gives these people the right to impose their beliefs as to what a "person" is upon another member of our species in order to justify their position? I suppose "might" is the answer. Newborns are certainly in no position to defend themselves.

But I WILL say this. At least it's a move towards consistency. There never was any reason for drawing a line at birth and saying that before birth an individual has no right to live then at birth he or she does.

Oh boy, another abortion thread.

In short, it's justified because inside a woman's womb is her business, especially at earlier stages of pregnancy. It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

I'd rather just stay out of it, just as drugs, it's an impossible crime to regulate even when made illegal, you might as well make it legal and as safe as possible. Make birth control as available as possible, help prevent unplanned pregnancy.

Is this the UMC official position? Just curious. I know the LCMS is against abortion but has never stated anything about birth control. Unlike Rome, I suspect most denominations figure their parishioners have brains and can decide for themselves.

[citdog]

Oh, while we're on that "Just War" thing...I remember a discussion several years back between some neighbors. A couple of people, Catholics, said we should not have bombed Hiroshima...in that case there were "too many" "innocent" casualties. They babbled on about how we could have done things differently and still won the war.

Screw that. There are times when you must punish the people that support the regime that is attacking you and there are times when eliminating whole populations will...amazingly...eliminate the very people that would kil you.

God can do that...eliminate whole populations as punishment...but people can't? Just another example of the hypocrisy in religion.

I agree with those Catholics. We should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs.

One reason we did, it's been revealed in the last twenty years, is not necessarily because 100's of thousands of Allied people woulda died invading Japan, but, rather, because our wartime intelligence was so poor in Japan. Japan had been on the verge of economic and societal collapse since 1943, but, we could not get any white people in to spy (for obvious reasons) and the society was so closed and tight, we couldn't get any residents to do it, either. Thus, fear and hysteria, rather than reason and data, drove us to the bombs.

Had we been patient and cornered them in their homeland, embargoed them, we coulda waited out the inevitable which would come with little loss of Allied life.

Just my thoughts.

BULLSHIT. Operation Downfall, including Olympic and Coronet, invading at Kyushu(Olympic) and at Honshu(Coronet) would have cost the 'late united states' 1Million Casualties. MUCH better to drop a couple of bombs on little yellow japs than have all of those white men killed.

[youngterrier]

Oh boy, another abortion thread.

In short, it's justified because inside a woman's womb is her business, especially at earlier stages of pregnancy. It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

I'd rather just stay out of it, just as drugs, it's an impossible crime to regulate even when made illegal, you might as well make it legal and as safe as possible. Make birth control as available as possible, help prevent unplanned pregnancy.

Is this the UMC official position? Just curious. I know the LCMS is against abortion but has never stated anything about birth control. Unlike Rome, I suspect most denominations figure their parishioners have brains and can decide for themselves.

I don't speak for the UMC....
but what I do know that Catholic doctrine on contraception has no biblical origins, and quite frankly everything they say on contraception is pulled out of their ass. Condoms stop (or significantly slow down) the spread of HIV/AIDS and pregnancy. These are facts that the Catholic Church ignores. They reject reality and replace it with their own. On a side note, they really shouldn't be in Africa trying to help people if they aren't going to address one of the most major problems facing Africa.

[GannonFan]

Is this the UMC official position? Just curious. I know the LCMS is against abortion but has never stated anything about birth control. Unlike Rome, I suspect most denominations figure their parishioners have brains and can decide for themselves.

I don't speak for the UMC....
but what I do know that Catholic doctrine on contraception has no biblical origins, and quite frankly everything they say on contraception is pulled out of their ass. Condoms stop (or significantly slow down) the spread of HIV/AIDS and pregnancy. These are facts that the Catholic Church ignores. They reject reality and replace it with their own. On a side note, they really shouldn't be in Africa trying to help people if they aren't going to address one of the most major problems facing Africa.

Hey, I absolutely agree about the Church's position on birth control. It's amazingly inconsistent with the fact that they also advocate family planning, which if done correctly, actually is just as effective as any other birth control out there. So on one hand they are against the prevention of pregnancy, but then they advocate another method that does the same exact thing. Sure, family planning is more reliant on the people involved being disciplined about it, but it does what it's supposed to do - prevent pregnancies when you don't want them and help people get pregnant who do want to. Odd to believe in all that God is capable of and then just assume that God is unable to break his way through a thin layer of latex.

As for Africa, hey, if they weren't there the amount of people trying to help there would be drastically reduced. The Church has it's flaws, but even the biggest skeptics out there acknowledge that it does a lot of good, and in Africa it does. Sad that other people and organizations aren't as willing to step up and help, but it's the world we live in.

[catamount man]

Oh I agree. The birth control stance was just one reason why I left Catholicism. My sister's priest, she told me, actually spoke of the church's insane stances against birth control and failure to recognize the validity of same sex relationships as it relates to benefits, living wills, etc. I thought holy shit, he'll be getting a call from the Diocese REAL SOON.

[Pwns]

If these Libs agree on this, where will they stop? How about we just take out those that only partially give anything to existence? How about those that only give small amounts to society in general?

Libs = Donks = Nazis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”

PS Trying really hard to get my sweeping generalizations better - hope this one is up to par.

Don't like infantcide? Don't commit it. Don't impose your silly religious "babies are people too" mind set on the rest of us! Why can't religious nutjobs opposed to infantcide adopt all unwanted babies? Your rights begin at conception and end at childhood according to anti-choicers I suppose.

Also,

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah OVERPOPULATION!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah PEAK OIL!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GLOBAL WARMING!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah MISOGYNY!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DARKIES HAVING LOTS OF BABIES WHO WILL END UP IN PRISON AND/OR WELFARE!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THEOCRACY!

[citdog]

[youtube][/youtube]

[Cap'n Cat]

I agree with those Catholics. We should not have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs.

One reason we did, it's been revealed in the last twenty years, is not necessarily because 100's of thousands of Allied people woulda died invading Japan, but, rather, because our wartime intelligence was so poor in Japan. Japan had been on the verge of economic and societal collapse since 1943, but, we could not get any white people in to spy (for obvious reasons) and the society was so closed and tight, we couldn't get any residents to do it, either. Thus, fear and hysteria, rather than reason and data, drove us to the bombs.

Had we been patient and cornered them in their homeland, embargoed them, we coulda waited out the inevitable which would come with little loss of Allied life.

Just my thoughts.

Twenty-twenty hindsight.

And we still would have lost a lot more people trying to corner them and "waiting them out". There was still fighting going on in the Pacific and our boys would have been killed unnecessarily. If your son has a bullet coming to him tomorrow and you could stop it with a bomb, you'd do it.

Um

Don't agree, Cluckie. Not so much hindsight=20/20 as another missed opportunity. HOWEVER, what's done is done.

[citdog]

Twenty-twenty hindsight.

And we still would have lost a lot more people trying to corner them and "waiting them out". There was still fighting going on in the Pacific and our boys would have been killed unnecessarily. If your son has a bullet coming to him tomorrow and you could stop it with a bomb, you'd do it.

Um

Don't agree, Cluckie. Not so much hindsight=20/20 as another missed opportunity. HOWEVER, what's done is done.

FOR YOUR EDUCATION WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS SORELY LACKING ON THIS SUBJECT. PERHAPS YOU SHOULDN'T OPEN YOUR MOUTH ON SUBJECTS YOU HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF AND JUST USE IT FOR WHAT YOU ARE GOOD AT........SUCKING COCK AND STEAMSHOVELING COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF FOOD


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/op ... wnfall.htm

[YoUDeeMan]

Um

Don't agree, Cluckie. Not so much hindsight=20/20 as another missed opportunity. HOWEVER, what's done is done.

Seriously, do you know what was going on in Asia at the time?

You suggest that we should have sat around and waited for Japan to collapse from within. How'd that air power war work for Germany against Great Britain? Think the Brits would have just thrown in the towel? When did an air war or a simple blockade ever win a war?

Japan still had a large force in China that controled most of the coast. China had already lost millions of people in protracted wars against Russian, Japan, the CCP (you might have heard about those communist guys that took power a few years later) and whomever else was willing to raid their country, so they were hesitant to press the Japanese at a hurried pace. Besides fighting themselves, China was also concerned about Indochina (you know, those French guys wanting to return to Vietnam and their other Asian possessions), India's independence from Britain, and a whole host of other issues. The Japanese were again ready to attack American air bases in the region and the Chinese were willing to retreat to avoid heavier casualties, but the bloodshed would have continued all over the place if we hadn't dropped the bomb.

All in all, we needed to end the wars in that region quickly or WWII might have morphed into something bigger that would last for many generations without end. As it was, we got a few years of relative peace before the shvt hit the fan again.

[JohnStOnge]

It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

It's not just her body. Another body is involved. Otherwise, I guess you're saying that one individual's right to privacy trumps another individual's right to life.

And, really, it's ridiculous to say that it's a "right to privacy" issue to begin with.

[SeattleGriz]

If these Libs agree on this, where will they stop? How about we just take out those that only partially give anything to existence? How about those that only give small amounts to society in general?

Libs = Donks = Nazis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



PS Trying really hard to get my sweeping generalizations better - hope this one is up to par.

Don't like infantcide? Don't commit it. Don't impose your silly religious "babies are people too" mind set on the rest of us! Why can't religious nutjobs opposed to infantcide adopt all unwanted babies? Your rights begin at conception and end at childhood according to anti-choicers I suppose.

Also,

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah OVERPOPULATION!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah PEAK OIL!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GLOBAL WARMING!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah MISOGYNY!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah DARKIES HAVING LOTS OF BABIES WHO WILL END UP IN PRISON AND/OR WELFARE!
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah THEOCRACY!

Are you talking to me Francis?

[youngterrier]

It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

It's not just her body. Another body is involved. Otherwise, I guess you're saying that one individual's right to privacy trumps another individual's right to life.

And, really, it's ridiculous to say that it's a "right to privacy" issue to begin with.

Well that's great, but I can't tell if she's pregnant or not until well into the pregnancy, so if she gets an abortion in the privacy of her own home before showing, with no one around but the person doing the operation, it's pretty damn hard to prosecute. So to prevent this action from ever happening we'd have to do a vaginal sweep or the like on every female in the population every day or at least every week. That's too much trouble and money for me to care about, and it's somewhat fascist. And to think, I thought you were the type who didn't think it was necessary to go all out to save lives. I bet you wouldn't care if a woman abused her child senseless, seeing as that's her choice and right to do as a parent, in such scenario many conservatives side with the mother, even though the rights of another individual are infringed upon. If you're going to give a double standard for the rights of children, you might as well give a double standard for unborn children.

[SeattleGriz]

It's not just her body. Another body is involved. Otherwise, I guess you're saying that one individual's right to privacy trumps another individual's right to life.

And, really, it's ridiculous to say that it's a "right to privacy" issue to begin with.

Well that's great, but I can't tell if she's pregnant or not until well into the pregnancy, so if she gets an abortion in the privacy of her own home before showing, with no one around but the person doing the operation, it's pretty damn hard to prosecute. So to prevent this action from ever happening we'd have to do a vaginal sweep or the like on every female in the population every day or at least every week. That's too much trouble and money for me to care about, and it's somewhat fascist. And to think, I thought you were the type who didn't think it was necessary to go all out to save lives. I bet you wouldn't care if a woman abused her child senseless, seeing as that's her choice and right to do as a parent, in such scenario many conservatives side with the mother, even though the rights of another individual are infringed upon. If you're going to give a double standard for the rights of children, you might as well give a double standard for unborn children.

Your sweeping generalizations are getting better, but you really need to step it up and insult a greater audience.

I suggest you go to school at the Cap'n and Tennille (D1B) school of Caustic Replies for a little help.

[youngterrier]

Well that's great, but I can't tell if she's pregnant or not until well into the pregnancy, so if she gets an abortion in the privacy of her own home before showing, with no one around but the person doing the operation, it's pretty damn hard to prosecute. So to prevent this action from ever happening we'd have to do a vaginal sweep or the like on every female in the population every day or at least every week. That's too much trouble and money for me to care about, and it's somewhat fascist. And to think, I thought you were the type who didn't think it was necessary to go all out to save lives. I bet you wouldn't care if a woman abused her child senseless, seeing as that's her choice and right to do as a parent, in such scenario many conservatives side with the mother, even though the rights of another individual are infringed upon. If you're going to give a double standard for the rights of children, you might as well give a double standard for unborn children.

Your sweeping generalizations are getting better, but you really need to step it up and insult a greater audience.

I suggest you go to school at the Cap'n and Tennille (D1B) school of Caustic Replies for a little help.

just making a point because I am 95% sure that JSO sides with the Mother on that issue, so why is this different?

[JohnStOnge]

I thought you were the type who didn't think it was necessary to go all out to save lives. I bet you wouldn't care if a woman abused her child senseless, seeing as that's her choice and right to do as a parent, in such scenario many conservatives side with the mother, even though the rights of another individual are infringed upon. If you're going to give a double standard for the rights of children, you might as well give a double standard for unborn children.

What I said is that there is a difference between engaging in a positive attack on someone else and opting not to assist someone else. Walking up to someone and shooting them is a positive attack. Opting not to donate money in order to feed someone who is hungry is not.

If a woman abuses her child we are probably talking about a direct, positive attack. Abortion is also a direct, positive attack. I am opposed to both.

Since we're on the subject of children, in case you're wondering, I do think that a parent has an obligation to take care of their children. That is one instance in which someone has an obligation to take care of someone else.

But other people are not, or should not be, obligated to help them take care of, feed, etc., that parent's children. If you have children or adopt some, those children are your responsibility and you have no legitimate right to expect other people to help you discharge that responsibility. If they voluntarily help you, that's fine. But they should not be forced to do so.

[JohnStOnge]

Well that's great, but I can't tell if she's pregnant or not until well into the pregnancy, so if she gets an abortion in the privacy of her own home before showing, with no one around but the person doing the operation, it's pretty damn hard to prosecute. So to prevent this action from ever happening we'd have to do a vaginal sweep or the like on every female in the population every day or at least every week.

There is no suggestion that women be monitored in that way. We don't do similar things to monitor for other potential crimes. For example: In a marriage, it's always possible that one partner may physically abuse the other. We could dramatically reduce the risk of that happening by putting monitoring devices in homes and also devising means to monitor people as they go through their days. That would cut way down on spousal abuse as well as a lot of other things, but it would be an invasion of privacy.

One could argue that there is an invasion of privacy associated with any law prohibiting any action. But making a law saying that a woman not hire someone else to kill her own progeny or do that herself is not an unacceptable invasion of privacy and would not require that every reproductive aged woman have her pregnancy status monitoried.

[youngterrier]

Well that's great, but I can't tell if she's pregnant or not until well into the pregnancy, so if she gets an abortion in the privacy of her own home before showing, with no one around but the person doing the operation, it's pretty damn hard to prosecute. So to prevent this action from ever happening we'd have to do a vaginal sweep or the like on every female in the population every day or at least every week.

There is no suggestion that women be monitored in that way. We don't do similar things to monitor for other potential crimes. For example: In a marriage, it's always possible that one partner may physically abuse the other. We could dramatically reduce the risk of that happening by putting monitoring devices in homes and also devising means to monitor people as they go through their days. That would cut way down on spousal abuse as well as a lot of other things, but it would be an invasion of privacy.

One could argue that there is an invasion of privacy associated with any law prohibiting any action. But making a law saying that a woman not hire someone else to kill her own progeny or do that herself is not an unacceptable invasion of privacy and would not require that every reproductive aged woman have her pregnancy status monitoried.

But that wouldn't do anything from stopping the problem. There would still be abortions, and there would still be people hired to give them. It's just like drugs, you can make a law against it, but people will find a way to use them. And like drugs, if it's inevitable that they're going to do it, you might as well legalize it and make it as safe as possible.

[youngterrier]

I thought you were the type who didn't think it was necessary to go all out to save lives. I bet you wouldn't care if a woman abused her child senseless, seeing as that's her choice and right to do as a parent, in such scenario many conservatives side with the mother, even though the rights of another individual are infringed upon. If you're going to give a double standard for the rights of children, you might as well give a double standard for unborn children.

What I said is that there is a difference between engaging in a positive attack on someone else and opting not to assist someone else. Walking up to someone and shooting them is a positive attack. Opting not to donate money in order to feed someone who is hungry is not.

If a woman abuses her child we are probably talking about a direct, positive attack. Abortion is also a direct, positive attack. I am opposed to both.

Since we're on the subject of children, in case you're wondering, I do think that a parent has an obligation to take care of their children. That is one instance in which someone has an obligation to take care of someone else.

But other people are not, or should not be, obligated to help them take care of, feed, etc., that parent's children. If you have children or adopt some, those children are your responsibility and you have no legitimate right to expect other people to help you discharge that responsibility. If they voluntarily help you, that's fine. But they should not be forced to do so.

Yes, but how do you define the difference between a positive attack and discipline? You'd probably support a woman's right to discipline, but what line do you draw? Either way, the child has less rights than the mother.

[89Hen]

In short, it's justified because inside a woman's womb is her business, especially at earlier stages of pregnancy. It's her body, not mine and the only way of which to make sure every life is saved is to infringe upon that privacy.

You said a mouthful there YT. Maybe one day you'll figure it out.