Abortion II

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, Coffeehouse, I'm not sure I can live anywhere in taxlessness, in this country. I mean, short of being completely homeless. In most places, I'd pay a sales tax on almost anything I bought. I pay income taxes, over a certain amount of income. I pay various wage taxes on anything I earn. I pay land taxes on any piece of forest I inhabited, or someone else would, if someone else owned it.

But the point here is, the government doesn't use a standard of "awfulness" to restrict liberty. It's just their hobby.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But, see, that's where I disagree. Look at zoning laws. Why should I have to pay a fee to the government to build a house that they approve? Why can't I live in a teepee, if I want to? If I'm a certain age, I have to attend school. When does the 'live and let live" part show up, there? In many schools, I even have to wear a uniform. I can't be naked in my yard. I can't have 3 husbands and 2 wives. I can't withhold my taxes. I can't drive a child without an approved carseat, but the school district can. I can't ride a motercycle without a helmet...Every day, my 'live and let live" is constrained at all points by the government, as the voice of society.

Where does the 'live and let live" aspect begin?

Because if I listed all the things we CAN do, it's be a lot longer than your post!

Anyway, obviously we won't agree on this matter of opinion. And again, the "awfulness" was referring to punitive action on the part of the government, specifically the "worst" type of punitive action, not things like zoning laws (for which I"m grateful).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

To be frank I'm not too sure what is meant by "live and let live" in relation to abortion (English-not-being-my-mother-tongue-reality shoots in!). Anyone care to enlighten me?

Again, I think LALL is an overall thing in our society, superseded only by reasonable limitations. But in terms of abortion, some might say the LALL concept supports a woman being able to choose to abort. However, certainly the pro-lifers would say that LALL means that the baby should be able to live!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So are you truly genuinely ok with killing someone who you KNOW (assuming you have the ability to know for sure) has been fundamentally changed by finding god (becoming born again, however you want to put it) because they shot a liquor store clerk back in 1978 during a robbery when they were 19 years old? What if this person has actually done real good for others since his conversion? Are you really fine with killing him despite the fact that he seems to have begun to finally realize his god given potential? Can you REALLY justify to yourself the notion that yes he is a good man now because of redemption he found after commiting the sins he did and he is doing good for his fellow man now but we need to kill him anyway.

I wonder if a god would really have in mind the death of one man and the imprisonment of his killer which then leads to the killers redemption and living a life of good works only to have him killed as he is finally fulfilling his potential. That doesn’t make sense to me under any kind of religious logic Im aware of.

I'm not fixed in stone about the death penalty. I think there are good arguments for AND against it. But I think it makes sense - the idea that some choices are so heinous that a person forfeits their right to their life - although I'm not sure it's right for our society right now. I'm slightly on the side of supporting it in extreme cases, although if it came to a vote, I'd have to think about it more.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I disagree. I think that there is no philosophical justification for the death penalty. The innate value and dignity of a human person is simply too high for it to be altogether right to destroy a human person.

That said, there are some circumstances where it would be necessary. For instance, if leaving a particular criminal alive would have serious detrimental effects on society. If someone is kept imprisoned without the ability to communicate with the people they know outside, the only way there would be these serious detrimental effects would in if they had a good probability of escaping. Which isn't the case in the vast majority of the Western world. So, in short, "Death penalty is bad: some circumstances excuse it as the lesser of two evils: these circumstances are or can be non-existent in highly developed nations".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Why do you say that? Nobody is suggesting that we kill the mother (or anyone else) - while the pro-abortion people are all on board with killing the baby.

Those of us who are pro-life simply want to protect the innocent, and speak up for those who have no voice.

No, they do not really care all that much about the innocent, or else they would follow through with the logic.

What they care about is their belief system.

"Life" (the concept) is what is important, not simply life.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If someone is kept imprisoned without the ability to communicate with the people they know outside, the only way there would be these serious detrimental effects would in if they had a good probability of escaping. Which isn't the case in the vast majority of the Western world.

So you are saying that there is absolutely no cost to society for keeping someone alive and imprisoned for their entire life?

[katya]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

No, they do not really care all that much about the innocent, or else they would follow through with the logic.

What they care about is their belief system.

"Life" (the concept) is what is important, not simply life.

That's what I'm saying, BJ. I don't think "murder" is wrong as a concept. I just don't think it's a positive thing in most circumstances.

[inked]

The philosophical rationale for support of the death penalty and the privileging of the in utero human is the same: the concept of desert.

de·sert3 /dɪˈzɜrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-zurt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. Often, deserts. reward or punishment that is deserved: to get one's just deserts.
2. the state or fact of deserving reward or punishment.
3. the fact of deserving well; merit; virtue.
[Origin: 1275–1325; ME < OF deserte, n. use of fem. ptp. of deservir to deserve]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desert

The person sentenced to punishment is deserving of that because of their actions up to and including the death penalty.

The in utero human is deserving of protection because of its innocence and blamelessness. The zygote onward deserves being well, merits the chance at life, and has the virtue of innocence.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That said, there are some circumstances where it would be necessary. For instance, if leaving a particular criminal alive would have serious detrimental effects on society. If someone is kept imprisoned without the ability to communicate with the people they know outside, the only way there would be these serious detrimental effects would in if they had a good probability of escaping. Which isn't the case in the vast majority of the Western world.

But it's really kewl when we're talking about Magneto.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by katya

That's what I'm saying, BJ. I don't think "murder" is wrong as a concept. I just don't think it's a positive thing in most circumstances.

I agree

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

The person sentenced to punishment is deserving of that because of their actions up to and including the death penalty.

The in utero human is deserving of protection because of its innocence and blamelessness. The zygote onward deserves being well, merits the chance at life, and has the virtue of innocence.

I don’t think this is a very Christian point of view frankly. Did jesus stress punishment or forgiveness? Isnt redemption a huge part of Christian philosophy? And I find it ironic that you would argue for sparing the potential life of the zygote on the grounds that it is innocent but condemn the same life form 30 years later when it commits a capital offense on the grounds that it has done wrong despite still holding the potential for redemption. It’s a bold face inconsistency in my book. Not to mention you risk (in fact guarantee) the execution of innocents by supporting a blanket death penalty policy for your society. So if the virtue of innocence is your measurement for protecting zygotes that grow up to be killers while ignoring falsely accused who get inevitably railroaded by the system then your house of cards needs some work.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So you are saying that there is absolutely no cost to society for keeping someone alive and imprisoned for their entire life?

No. Obviously, we as taxpayers have to pay for their upkeep. However, this amounts to a hell of a lot less than the dignity of a human life.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t think this is a very Christian point of view frankly. Did jesus stress punishment or forgiveness? Isnt redemption a huge part of Christian philosophy? And I find it ironic that you would argue for sparing the potential life of the zygote on the grounds that it is innocent but condemn the same life form 30 years later when it commits a capital offense on the grounds that it has done wrong despite still holding the potential for redemption. It’s a bold face inconsistency in my book. Not to mention you risk (in fact guarantee) the execution of innocents by supporting a blanket death penalty policy for your society. So if the virtue of innocence is your measurement for protecting zygotes that grow up to be killers while ignoring falsely accused who get inevitably railroaded by the system then your house of cards needs some work.

IR - I don't see how this makes sense.

Can YOU determine which 'zygotes' will commit a capital offense 30 years later? Clearly, none of us can! I don't understand why you claim it's a 'house of cards' when someone believes in letting them live while they have done no harm, but insists that they pay for their crimes once committed.

Capital punishment is one of the difficult issues (war being another) which has no consensus in Christianity. If one looks at only a very limited amount of information about Christianity - yes, you could conclude that it would always prohibit capital punishment. However - there is a fuller picture.

I myself am against capital punishment. There are times that I have been for it in the past. But for my part, I have concluded that we don't mete it out even-handedly, that 'the system' is filled with injustices, that we convict far too many innocent people - and that minorities and the poor are certainly over-represented in those sentences than the rest of the populace (even looking only at convictions for a specific crime). That - as well as the hope I would hold out for any (rightly) convicted criminal's repentance and salvation. Although - some Christians can come up with good counter-arguments to all that (even that facing one's "moment of truth" may incline one to get serious about preparing to meet one's Maker - but I don't hold that to necessarily be true)

I just continue to be boggled by those who defend killing the unborn children, but would oppose exacting payment of life for life from a convicted killer (if rightly convicted). I'm not pressing for that latter - but I'm just baffled that the former can be defended in the name of anything moral.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

But it's really kewl when we're talking about Magneto.

(OT) I thought I once saw you desparage Marvel Comics in these very pages...

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I don’t think this is a very Christian point of view frankly. Did jesus stress punishment or forgiveness? Isnt redemption a huge part of Christian philosophy? And I find it ironic that you would argue for sparing the potential life of the zygote on the grounds that it is innocent but condemn the same life form 30 years later when it commits a capital offense on the grounds that it has done wrong despite still holding the potential for redemption. It’s a bold face inconsistency in my book. Not to mention you risk (in fact guarantee) the execution of innocents by supporting a blanket death penalty policy for your society. So if the virtue of innocence is your measurement for protecting zygotes that grow up to be killers while ignoring falsely accused who get inevitably railroaded by the system then your house of cards needs some work.

IR, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Therefore, He acknowledge the position of the government in its sphere and God in all spheres. And he further said, "Fear not those who kill the body but Him who can kill the soul." so if you are arguing for a gentle Jesus meek and mild who never said a cross word or held folks accountable, I submit you have not heard about the authentic One.

You have not made an argument against the concept of desert, I fear. You have pointed out its potential for, and in human hands capacity to, error in application. You have constructed a house of cards.

One can legitimately argue for the preservation of the zygote forward on the basis of desert. One can legitimately argue for the death penalty and lesser punishments on the gradation of harm done, i.e., desert. The 'Mooter who ignores your query is not liable for the death penalty. The coldblooded killer who gets his/her jollies from senseless murder very well does. The concept of desert is not dependent upon its impeccable application but on its merit. Applicability is a different argument.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Valandil

Can YOU determine which 'zygotes' will commit a capital offense 30 years later? Clearly, none of us can! I don't understand why you claim it's a 'house of cards' when someone believes in letting them live while they have done no harm, but insists that they pay for their crimes once committed.

It’s a house of cards because there is an inherent inconsistency in defending the potential and/or innocence of one life while ignoring the potential and/or innocence of another. Crimes don’t enter into it since in the Christian system they can be legitimately forgiven and in fact lead to salvation.

I myself am against capital punishment. There are times that I have been for it in the past. But for my part, I have concluded that we don't mete it out even-handedly, that 'the system' is filled with injustices, that we convict far too many innocent people - and that minorities and the poor are certainly over-represented in those sentences than the rest of the populace (even looking only at convictions for a specific crime). That - as well as the hope I would hold out for any (rightly) convicted criminal's repentance and salvation.

And I commend you for this long thought point of view about capital punishment. We share almost identical opinion patterns with this issue although my journey was not influenced by any religion of course. I too used to be ok with the idea of killing those who would commit the most heinous of injustices. But once I was better educated about the reality of capital punishment (its bias and inconsistencies as you point out) I found myself torn between the concept of getting rid of truly vial dangerous people and having to swallow the reality of uneven representation when a life is on the line, the inevitable deaths of innocents and the concept of the state having final say over the very right of ours to live. And I concluded, like you, that this is not our place. This is not our decision to make. To be in the business of taking away lives is inconsistent when the very founding of our nation is built upon inalienable rights and liberties and the limitations of government.

I just continue to be boggled by those who defend killing the unborn children, but would oppose exacting payment of life for life from a convicted killer (if rightly convicted). I'm not pressing for that latter - but I'm just baffled that the former can be defended in the name of anything moral.

The reason I can defend it is because we have a fundamental difference in how we view the unborn. To me a collection of cells affixed to the insides of a human being, no matter what the potential, does not merit the same consideration as a full grown adult or even a more developed fetus for that matter. To you there is no distinction so of course it seems arbitrary and horrible.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, Jesus said "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." Therefore, He acknowledge the position of the government in its sphere and God in all spheres. And he further said, "Fear not those who kill the body but Him who can kill the soul." so if you are arguing for a gentle Jesus meek and mild who never said a cross word or held folks accountable, I submit you have not heard about the authentic One.

Come on for every biblical quote you have regarding killing people I could probably find ten arguing for forgiveness and against killing. We both know that’s a hopeless way of arguing the point. And the bottom line is Christianity is founded on the concept of loving our fellow human, salvation and forgiveness of our sins. So some out of context line about not interfering in roman politics can not at all outweigh the very philosophy of the religion.

The 'Mooter who ignores your query is not liable for the death penalty. The coldblooded killer who gets his/her jollies from senseless murder very well does. The concept of desert is not dependent upon its impeccable application but on its merit. Applicability is a different argument.

Well first of all, doesn’t that counter the statements you made up there regarding justification for the death penalty in the bible? After all if you are to use biblical references to justify Christian support of the death penalty in regards to murder then you should also be using biblical references to justify the death penalty for cursing ones parents, committing blasphemy against God, breaking the Sabbath, practicing magic, fortune telling, adultery, fornication, intercourse before marriage (women only of course…), worshipping idols, incest, homosexuality, kidnapping, false witness, contempt of court, etc., etc., etc… just to be consistent. The limited pool of crimes that our government determines to be capital offenses does not at all jive with the Christian notion of the same. So Im not very sure if biblical reference is the way you want to go about justifying the death penalty really.
And I dare say impeccable applicability is a keenly important consideration in this decision! What happens when innocent persons are executed? Is that ok in gods eyes because we thought we were killing a sinner? Or shouldn’t the notion that a person’s ultimate fate is in the hands of god tell us that we need and should not play the roll of overt executioner. That in the end they will get what they deserve. Their just deserts right? Of the ultimate variety…

[Valandil]

IR - I really don't have the time or energy (unfortunately - since I wish I could) to keep up with all this, but I will respond to this one part:

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

... Crimes don’t enter into it since in the Christian system they can be legitimately forgiven and in fact lead to salvation.
:
:
:

I still think that crimes - and their consequences - enter into things, at least at a societal level. Christians understand that crimes and/or sins both (some acts may be both, some just one or the other) - still have their earthly consequences, even if there is room for eternal forgiveness.

[inked]

IR,
You seem under the misapprehension that forgiveness entails the negation of the consequences of the forgiven sin entirely. That is not what Christianity teaches. Christianity teaches the REDEMPTION of the sin, that is, not its negation but its being re-wrought into good.

I am going to quote Dorothy L. Sayers on the subject.

"One muddle about forgiveness is of the same kind - forgiveness is the restoration of a good relationship, but it doesn't abolish the consequences of the offence, nor is it going back to where we were before the offence was committed. It's got to be a new relationship (in that sense, certainly, "a fresh start') which contains and transmutes the disturbance caused by the offence. If I borrow money from you and squander it, your forgiving the debt doesn't put bak the money - that's lost and you bear the loss and so "carry the guilt". If I get in a rage with you and throw your best teapot out of a window, no amount of forgiveness will unbreak the teapot - all we can aim for is a relationship in which both you and I can bear to sit down and breakfast together out of a shaving mug without feeling uncomfortable and without an ostentatious avoidance of the subject of teapots. The universe can't "break the iron law of cause and effect" - that would mean an irrational universe; but the effects can be so "made good" that the whole process is redeemed - "O felix culpa-". (THE CHRIST OF THE CREEDS, "The Nature of Redemption", page 91 ff., Dorothy L. Sayers Society publication, 2008).

Christianity is founded upon the payment for the penalty of sin by Jesus of Nazareth, God Incarnate, upon the Cross and the re-creation of the whole ruined by sin in the Resurrection. That entails the whole of human life from womb to tomb and the whole of creation from Big Bang to the end of the Creation. And that line about rendering Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's is not out of context but foundational because ultimately Caesar renders to God what is God's.

You also committed a fallacy in arguing that all biblical statements are of equal validity without distinction or gradation and equate in your list - apparently - Do no murder with do no killing with do no disobedience et cetera.

Innocent persons unjustly accused and executed dut to human fallibility have their sufferings joined to the sufferings of Christ in the redemption of the world, just as the sufferings of any unjustly are so treated in God's economy. But we have to strive to be just and not to inflict knowingly such suffering. That becomes culpable sin and has its own consequences in the lives of the innocent and the do-ers of the deeds.

"Vengeance is mine, I will repay," says God. In this regard as the ultimate arbiter of good and evil and cause and effect and separating the wheat from chaff, you remember correctly. But that does not delimit the appropriate punishment in this world as the consequences of the acts of even the most repentant. This gets into the conceptualization of the fact of sin and the stain of sin. All sin breaks fellowship with God before it breaks fellowship with humanity or the planet or spiritual beings or our inner being. God graciously repairs that breach in His Son Jesus Christ and restores us to right relationship with Himself, others, the planet, spiritual beings, and ourselves - if we let Him. But that doesn't unbreak the broken teapot, does it? The consequences - the stain of sin - remain to be dealt with in the redeemed relationship. And getting one's just desert is part of that process. The ultimate reality is that God is there bearing it with you and that redemption can be done.

This is the part where GK Chesterton's remark about Christianity has not been tried and found wanting but it has been tried and found difficult comes into play. If the human in the womb is innocent, is it not unjust to condemn it to death for convenience or even for rape? If the serial murderer is justly accused and convicted, is it just to not yield the consequences of the crime(s) to the perpetrator?