Killing kids in War vs. Killing unborn kids

Dude, not that I care, but you just opened a whole can of worms here. I hope you are prepared.

/me moves to the corner to watch the flame war begin.

the difference is, obviously, is that only a kid with his brain sucked out could come up with something like this

One's a bunch of cells with the potential to become a human being, one is a fully formed, aware and sentient human being.

Question answered?

Edit: Applause to yakkiebah

I'm not saying everyone that's pro-choice is a hypocrite right now, but you just can't have it both ways. Either you like little kids and you want them to grow-up to be happy and successful or you don't. If someone is comfortable with there position on a issue, that's fine with me, but I don't like it when people flip-flop on issues as long as it fits their agenda.

So, you're only human as long as you're surrounded by air. Is that what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand this.

Jeez, dude, what's next? Are you going to make a connection between the war in Iraq and Clonaid?

Pick a cause a stick with it, will ya?

Then its settled, I'm having scrambled eggs for breakfast

Does this help you understand the difference?





There is a difference between a blob of cells and a living, thinking, human being with feelings.

Scrambled Eggs and Veal for me.

Actually, No. That is a very narrow minded view.

That makes as much sense as "either you are for the war and want our troops to live, or you don't"

It all depends on where you define life as beginning.

Me? At conception. Not a moment before. So, yes, that little blob of cells is, indeed, a human being. Well, it ain't a fish or monkey or zebra...it's gotta be.

Those who disagree with me, often disagree beteween themselves on where life begins, and THAT is a slippery slope.

"Francis Crick, Nobel prize-winning biologist, advocates legislation under which_new born babies would not be considered_legally alive until they were two days old_and had been certified as healthy by medical examiners."

http://www.christianinformation.org/abort.html

Hmm, pro-choice means you don't think it should be illegal to have an abortion. It doesn't mean you want all children to die.


It seems to me that the real contradiction is on the pro-life side. How can one be pro-life in an absolute sense, and yet in favor of war, where people will die?

And BTW, many if not most religious leaders are against this war in Iraq, from the Pope to Bush's United Methodists.

As for me, I'm not pro-life in the absolute sense. I'm pro-life for those who are innocent. Those who have taken the life of an innocent person (i.e.: murder), have revoked their right to live.



Yeah, the media is REALLY pushing this point. I only know one conservative religous guy who is opposed to this war (he's a pacifist). The rest of my friends (liberal and conservative) tend to support the war. Also, my pastor here at college and my pastor at home support the war. Interesting.

The thing is that before 2-3 months old it has nothing that makes it different from the fish, zebra or monkey. Most mammals and also the less/more developed animals look just the same for at least a month in development. One of the reasons biology students can study chicken embryos in developmental biology classes. Of course it still is "life" and many disagree on when it is "human". But as BRussel said, pro-choice isn't all about the embryo it self. It is more about the right of women to decide it themselves.

I am finding myself in complete agreement with you.

I don't buy this at all. Obviously there is something different because one becomes a fish, zebra, monkey, and human. It's not like you can take a 2 month old fish blob and put it in a woman and it become a human.

Pro-life isn't about "choice." It's about the unalienable right we all have: LIFE. And these humans are being denied that to the tune of 4,000 a day, 40 Million and counting.

Not any that I know personally, FWIW. All the Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ and other mainstream church leaders in my area fully support this war.

And, FWIW, as an individual that has received certification for Ministry (I also have a BA in Theology and Philosophy), I, too, support the war.

I think those in support are the vocal minority. Not to mention, if you look at all the polls from all the major sources, 70% and higher of the "average population" is in full support of the war.

My 2�

Maury

Uh...Good?

Perhaps it is for YOU.

Seems to me the argument is always this point.

I think the current laws are in pretty close agreement with my view on when it is too late, Yet I don't agree with partial-birth abortions.

You seem to be religious and I respect that, I dont agree, but I can respect yor views. You have a set of morals you try to adhere to.

Is it so hard to imagine other people have a different set?

34,000 children die every day from hunger related illnesses, why not save them before you go saving undeveloped blobs of cells?

Oh, you mean like what happens in certain abortion procedures?

There's also another aspect to this, and it's a whole other Can Of Worms -- and where most "religious" people balk at the idea of abortion.

Many "religious" people that oppose abortion do so because of their belief that human beings contain something other Living Creatures don't: a soul. They believe that when a human is conceived, that human is created with a God-Given soul, thus killing or aborting this creation is "Playing God" and removing said soul from this world prematurely.

Again, this is a whole other topic and one that has several Theological, Philosophical, and Ethical paths of discussion -- but it's worth mentioning.



Maury

I'm curious why you look at this situation and think it hypocritical that:

A: Pro-choice people being appalled by children casualties in war

but not that...

B. Pro-Life people being for war on any level or capital punishment.

To me, B is more hypocritical because it starts on the premise that every life and potential life is sacred and should be protected.

A's only premise is that the choice should be left up to the mother. Many pro-choicers (myself included) would rather abortion never occurred, but feel its not our place to enforce that preference. Its completely consistent to also be appalled at the civilian (or any) human cost of war.

I don't care if they think they are made of playdoh as long as they are willing to accept the fact that other people don't feel this way and should have the choice not to feel this way.

What you said:

where you define life as beginning.

Me? At conception. Not a moment before

What I think you meant to say:

Me? At conception. Not a moment later

The only difference is some minute differences in the DNA. If that is what you argue then I must ask, is the DNA us and what is it that makes human DNA any more important than animal DNA? If you argue that I could mention some gross things like the little soldiers you kill every time you have sex(with a partner or by yourself). That means you kill many hundred thousand "babies" every time you hrmmmm........

I never said pro-life, I said pro-choice. The right of the woman to choose this for herself.

True, and that is a good point to discuss. My short answer is that God created all living and not living things on earth so there is no difference between humans and animals. But I know many disagree with me on this.

Hey sperm is alive.

And remember...


There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.

[music]
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,

Because

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.



GIRL: [singing]
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.


Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.


MUM: [singing]
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,


But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

MEN: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
[clunk]
Every sperm is great.
WOMEN: [singing]
If a sperm is wasted,...


CHILDREN: [singing]
...God gets quite irate.

PRIEST: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
BRIDE and GROOM: [singing]
Every sperm is good.


NANNIES: [singing]
Every sperm is needed...
CARDINALS: [singing]
...In your neighbourhood!



CHILDREN: [singing]
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.


FUNERAL CORTEGE: [singing]
God needs everybody's.
MOURNER #1:
Mine!
MOURNER #2:
And mine!
CORPSE:
And mine!

NUN: [singing]
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
HOLY STATUES: [singing]
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.



EVERYONE: [singing]
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!



So get your hand off it Kitschy.

is this an attempt to "out brain" the original poster?

So then you're against the war, which will obviously kill innocents? Yes, the mainstream religious folks, who are overwhelmingly conservative, are in favor of the war. I find that odd. It underscores the skepticism so many of us liberals have towards the religious - that the belief system is for many, at its core, a political rather than a religious one.

One of the largest contingents of anti-war people (e.g., in Vietnam) were from religious groups. Now, the religion and the politics are so intertwined that you have the religious among the primary supporters of the war.

I'm on your side here, but this is just silly. Those minute differences in DNA mean absolutely everything to the biology of that organism.

Just an observation: lookit all the men arguing abortion. lookit all the folks in the forefront of the anti choice debate: men.

Now, of COURSE you can have an opinion. Of COURSE you can. Just know that it will be less than fully informed.

Now I return to my habit: avoiding virtual abortion debates.

True. But what I'm trying to say is that where is the boundary for human life? Is it when it starts to develop "human" features and begins to sense pain, sound, and pressure? Or is it from the beginning? Where do people set the boundary for "human" life and molecules? Is it the molecules that make us thinking animals with a soul or is it something else. Where does it start? When can you say "this is a human being"? I have no way to explain what I mean, oh... I hope you get what question I'm trying to raise.

Agreed. On BOTH accounts.

I think the differences in here is the intentions and the reasonings behind it. On both situations.

No, but why the need to suggest that someone who doesn't think like you or I does not have a brain?

So you think there should be an evaluation of the reasoning and intentions behind each abortion?

Actually, I think that would be a GREAT idea. Weed out the ones that are using it as birth control. Abortion shouldn't be used as birth control.

Uhh...right. My post didn't state otherwise.

Maury

But the thing that makes "humans" different to other creations -- to the people about whom I speak -- is that only humans are created with an eternal soul. Dogs, cats, trees, bugs...they're creations and living entities, but they don't have a soul.

I love Theology and Philosophy.

Maury

Does that include people who kills innocent people while invading their country?

Villa

Lerk, as usual you are a voice of reason and sanity (all too rare on these boards).
Pro-life and pro-capital punishment: "Don't kill 'em until they're old enough to appreciate the experience."

Why can't we do both?

Too many damn kids anyway

hm...why don't you make a modest proposal?

Are we going to be able to have a civil discussion???

I've heard the same arguments from people around me. But since I'm studying molecular biology I tend to not trying to involve theology to much into the arguments. Theology is a POV. Nothing more.

But I think that most of those who have had a pet would argue that the animals sure do have souls. All animals behave differently and you cannot(yet) describe why by using science. Then what is soul? Is it to be able to sing like James Brown? Is it to have feelings for family and friends? To argue the "soul" card we have to define Soul�. You start

Of course Theology is a point of view -- *everything* is!

But to move into the realm of Theology (Christian Theology, at least), pets/animals aren't believed to have souls. The "personality" you reference is considered to be the animal's spirit.

So what is the soul? The soul, to me and others that study various Theologies, is the eternal "part" of a Created Being. Further, Christian Theology sees a division: the Mind, Body, Spirit and Soul.

The Mind is what controls the Body. The Body is how we interact with The World around us. The Spirit is the more "internal" (Id-like) condition of our feelings and is expressed by our actions and choices made with our Mind. The Soul, lastly, is the part of our being that is eternal and destined to continue beyond this existance, and it's Condition has a tremendous effect on our Spirit.

The distinction, then, is that not all of God's creations were given souls -- only Human Beings. This was done to create a link between Humanity and the Divine, and the "Plan" was for Humanity to realize their Soul needed redemption and that God wanted to have an eternal relationship with Mankind. The catalyst for this relationship is the Soul.

Maury