CSNbbs

.... and only oppose abortion for the selfish reason of rewards in the afterlife.

How else to explain their stances?

Abortion of a first trimester undeveloped fetus? Pro-life (if you buy that it's a human life at this stage), because their 2000 year old tome and church leaders say so.

Death penalty for a person being safely held in custody because he was convicted by a jury? (Never mind that juries sometimes make mistakes.) Pro-death, because their 2000 year old tome is silent.

Overseas wars that kill 800,000 innocent civilians including women and children because they feel the least bit afraid? Pro-death; Jesus never said anything about cluster bombs.

Stand your ground and castle laws that let you kill a person if he's stealing a car stereo or in your home for whatever reason (he could have Alzheimers and honestly believe it's his own house for all you know) and you feel the least bit scared, and at its core values property rights over human life? Pro-death.

The Christian Right doesn't REALLY care. It's just a game for them, and Barry Goldwater couldn't have been more correct.

I'm sure I'll get a deluge of attacks for this, but can someone honestly refute this? How am I not being fair? I know it sounds unfair at first blush but it's the cold truth of the matter once you get down to it. Save the personal attacks. Where am I wrong?

The religious bigot speaks again...tolerance for everyone who agrees with Max and hate for everyone who doesn't....the intolerance of the self proclaimed tolerant is amazing.

I used to respect "pro lifers" who would protest abortions, because even though I disagreed with their argument that an early fetus is a human life, I respect their standing up for what they believe in and most certainly standing up to protect human life is noble. But then you also have the death penalty which most of them support, and the wars overseas which kill so many innocents yet they don't blink an eye, and now with this SYG law and arguments that a criminal (or just any person you might think is a criminal) has no value to his life and can be shot dead even when all death can be avoided easily, I can't respect it anymore. The more you think about it, the more you see it for the sham it is.

I'll also add that it was unfair for me to lump all pro lifers together, because there certainly are exceptions, but I think most of them would fit the mold I described in the OP, and I see those who do as massive hypocrites.

Reminder: Max is wrong again. Seriously low IQ.

(03-28-2012 09:17 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]Reminder: Max is wrong again. Seriously low IQ.

He's a bigot, a racist and an anti-semite. Low IQ and those things go hand in hand.

A thread titled, "Pro-Choicers" don't genuinely care about 'choice', could just as easily be created, complete with a myriad of comparisons to other topics where "pro-choicers" support the idea of having the government's hands on you and restricting choice.

But there aren't such threads, and this is because most people understand that the commonly used terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are almost exclusively used within the context of abortion topics only. Not to every subject under the sun.

Max...trolling should not be so obvious.

Right and wrong. Innocent and guilty. Concepts that completely elude Max.

Max, execute a Google image search of abortion. Get back to me to repugnant POS.

(03-28-2012 08:57 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]Stand your ground and castle laws that let you kill a person if he's stealing a car stereo or in your home for whatever reason (he could have Alzheimers and honestly believe it's his own house for all you know) and you feel the least bit scared, and at its core values property rights over human life? Pro-death.

Put aside the comfortable birds-eye viewpoint and try to personalize the situation:

You're on a business trip and it's your wife and young kid at home. A man breaks into the home in the middle of the night and is approaching the bedroom where they are cornered. Screams and shouts do nothing to stop the man from approaching.

Which way are you going lean here if she has a weapon available? Fire away, or tell her to keep trying to "reason" with the man for he might be an old coot with Alzheimers?

(03-28-2012 09:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Max...trolling should not be so obvious.

Amateurs trolling. Don't appreciate the subtleties of flame-bait.

This topic usually comes up on occasion, usually coupled with the "Gotcha!" attempt in trying to paint a contradiction.

Yet it can always be turned around so quickly and easily, and can successfully end the thread before it even gets started: Why do so many "pro-choicers" support limiting or reducing individual choice in other areas?

(03-28-2012 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2012 09:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Max...trolling should not be so obvious.

Amateurs trolling. Don't appreciate the subtleties of flame-bait.

visit the re-alignment board and check out Miko. He is truly a master.

(03-28-2012 09:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2012 09:39 AM)DrTorch Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2012 09:32 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Max...trolling should not be so obvious.

Amateurs trolling. Don't appreciate the subtleties of flame-bait.

visit the re-alignment board and check out Miko. He is truly a master.

I've seen his name mentioned, but haven't paid much attention.

I admit, whoever wrote, "UNLV to PAC-12" defintely got me. That was something so ridiculous I didn't even pause before reacting.

(03-28-2012 09:25 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote: [ -> ]A thread titled, "Pro-Choicers" don't genuinely care about 'choice', could just as easily be created, complete with a myriad of comparisons to other topics where "pro-choicers" support the idea of having the government's hands on you and restricting choice.

But there aren't such threads, and this is because most people understand that the commonly used terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are almost exclusively used within the context of abortion topics only. Not to every subject under the sun.

That's a fair response, although I disagree with your assumption that most people understand "pro-life" is to be used only in the context of abortion. I think they try to make the debate about the value of human life in general to score political points. I don't think they ever give the impression that they're only consistently pro-life when inside the womb, and if people got that impression I think they'd lose a lot of support. And I think a lot of people understand "pro choice" not to mean you should have the choice to do ANYTHING and so it is limited to the context of abortion. But you make an interesting point.

Quote:Max...trolling should not be so obvious.

The only thing I'm trolling for is a satisfactory explanation.

Quote:Right and wrong. Innocent and guilty. Concepts that completely elude Max.

Let's say there's a guy in your home you think is burgling you. How do you know he's guilty? Like I said, maybe he's mentally ill, maybe it's the neighborhood kids playing a prank on your son. And many people on death row have been exonerated, so they're not all guilty. And your explanation doesn't even touch the war issue.

But let's just assume you're right and they are all guilty. A "guilty" person's life is worthless? Sounds like a pretty big caveat to the "pro-life" ideology. More like "Pro-life, except when a person enters into my house at night for any reason, or a racist jury says hedunnit, or when you're born in the wrong country." Just doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Quote:Put aside the comfortable birds-eye viewpoint and try to personalize the situation:

You're on a business trip and it's your wife and young kid at home. A man breaks into the home in the middle of the night and is approaching the bedroom where they are cornered. Screams and shouts do nothing to stop the man from approaching.

Which way are you going lean here if she has a weapon available? Fire away, or tell her to keep trying to "reason" with the man for he might be an old coot with Alzheimers?

Don't pick apart my hypos. I realize that under different facts the use of force is more justified, but my hypos are constructed as they are for a reason (to illustrate the potential of injustice). By changing my hypos you're changing the subject. Here, by changing the hypo you're making the issue about defense of others (your wife and kid), and if you reasonably believe they are in danger and they can't escape safely with you I would agree the use of force is justified, or at least you can make a much better argument.

But that's not the point here. The point is SYG, which removes the duty to retreat. Say you're the only person in your house and you can safely escape out the window (and you know it's safe). By doing so you save your life and the guy downstairs. You should have to. The guy downstairs may be guilty, or he may be innocent, but even if he's guilty his life certainly still has value, doesn't it? Isn't possibly losing your TV if the cops show up late worth less than a human life?

Now this is actually illustrative of the castle doctrine, which is what SYG is derived from. The castle doctrine says you don't have to retreat in your home, but SYG goes a step further and says you don't have to retreat anywhere, so that you can be in a parking lot like I said before and you don't have to escape a life saving confrontation even if it's easy.

Max, let's chat about the death penalty part of your question. One can be pro-life and be pro-death penalty without any moral ambiguity.

Retribution (read as: death penalty) as the sole end of punishment is not an inherently immoral or wrong reaction to truly callous, inhumane and violent acts against innocent victims.

I am perfectly fine with the State administering the death penalty, even though I am a proponent of smaller government. Force of law is necessary to assign value and protect rights, enforce contracts, and regulate exchanges. As such, weak punishment for murder denigrates the government's ability to enforce laws, it denigrates the value of the victim's life, and it denigrates the value of human life in that society.

Because when a criminal has committed a heinous crime, their interests should be considered infinitely subordinate to the interests of the victim in receiving some justice, and to the value of the victim's destroyed life.

I feel that once someone has committed a vicious murder, whether they get life in prison or death, it's fair. And out of many criminals, there are a few who shouldn't continue to breathe. Whether race possibly influenced the outcome, whether the outcome would have been different in another state, or whether the killer was abused as a child, etc., are not issues that I can care very much about, after guilt has been established for a very severe crime.

That's the difference. A fetus, a baby, receives none of that above benefit.

(BTW when I see the anti-death penalty movement, I see a lot of murderers getting a lot of solicitous attention from those who wouldn't otherwise touch them with a ten-foot pole because they happened to get a death sentence instead of life in prison. I don't think trying to apporpriate an anti-death penalty stance imbues you with good honest characters)

(03-28-2012 08:57 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ].... and only oppose abortion for the selfish reason of rewards in the afterlife.

YOu don't know crap about my motivations Max but please let your completely non biased analysis continue

Quote:Abortion of a first trimester undeveloped fetus? Pro-life (if you buy that it's a human life at this stage), because their 2000 year old tome and church leaders say so.

Or, and work with me here, its because embryo has the three brain sections; fore brain, middle brain and hind brain, along with the optical stalk. at four weeks... oh yea and the heart is beating a week before that.

I believe that human life is not qualified by IQ or viability. Those two measures are both subjective and changeable with technology and treatment.

Quote:Death penalty for a person being safely held in custody because he was convicted by a jury?

There are many Christians who are against the death Penalty, every hear of the catholic church? There is no consensus is the Christian community on the death penalty.

***The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the death penalty is permissible in cases of extreme gravity. The Church teaches that capital punishment is allowed if the "guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined" and if the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party.***

You also ignore the issue of guilt.. You may not think the death penalty is ok but please don't be so obtuse as to ignore the difference between Hitler and a two week old baby.

Quote:(Never mind that juries sometimes make mistakes.) Pro-death, because their 2000 year old tome is silent.

See Catholics above... Their are pro life and pro death penalty people among Christians and Atheist alike.

Contact these guys (Atheist for Life) and ask them what tome they are using

Quote:Overseas wars that kill 800,000 innocent civilians including women and children because they feel the least bit afraid?

Yea the soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia... Clearly killed millions based on their religions. Max people, as a whole, are likely to kill in large groups.

Quote:Pro-death; Jesus never said anything about cluster bombs.

***Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one***

Today that might read go buy a glock. Christ instructed his diciples to be armed sorry if that does not juve with the image of hippy Jesus.

Quote:Stand your ground and castle laws that let you kill a person if he's stealing a car stereo or in your home for whatever reason (he could have Alzheimers and honestly believe it's his own house for all you know) and you feel the least bit scared, and at its core values property rights over human life? Pro-death.

Actually you can kill people without those laws. Those laws allow you to protect your home, and your person. Like any right it can be abused, and its tragic when they are abused because people die.

And statist like you can use it as a rallying cry to restrict liberty.

Quote:The Christian Right doesn't REALLY care.

You don't know enough about Christ, Christians, or the Church to make that assessment.

Quote:I'm sure I'll get a deluge of attacks for this, but can someone honestly refute this?

Not one line above actually attacks you max, and refutes everything you said.

Quote:How am I not being fair?

Ignoring the Catholic Churches stated position on the Death Penalty and war is one way. Being blatantly obtuse is another.

(03-28-2012 10:13 AM)Max Power Wrote: [ -> ]But that's not the point here. The point is SYG, which removes the duty to retreat. Say you're the only person in your house and you can safely escape out the window (and you know it's safe). By doing so you save your life and the guy downstairs. You should have to. The guy downstairs may be guilty, or he may be innocent, but even if his life is guilty it certainly still has value, doesn't it? Isn't possibly losing your TV if the cops show up late worth less than a human life?

Now this is actually illustrative of the castle doctrine, which is what SYG is derived from. The castle doctrine says you don't have to retreat in your home, but SYG goes a step further and says you don't have to retreat anywhere, so that you can be in a parking lot like I said before and you can't escape a life saving confrontation even if it's easy.

Personally I would do anything possible to escape from my home, and avoid the prospect of delivering death to someone as much as possible. I'd much rather gtfo than partake in violence. But... I support the castle doctrine because I support others' rights to take him out, even if an escape route was available.

I have lukewarm support for SYG. But if someone breaks into your house, they assume the risks because they've essentially cornered the victim like a desperate squirrel within those walls. I don't have much sympathy for a home invader if they get badly injured (or worse), armed or not. You accept that risky outcome when you bust into someone's home.

Being pro-life myself, I sometimes find myself looking at what we now call conservative pro-lifers and find conflict. I don't understand how you can completely oppose abortion and then dog a kid and his parent(s) out when they become products of food stamps or other government assistance. If you're pro-life and pro-death penalty, you must be pro-(something in between birth and death) IMO. It's just wrong to fight for their birth but not for their well-being after birth.