Posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
. But thanks for revealing yourself as a communist who is opposed to anyone supporting their family as a professional writer.
Seems to be a dichotomy here, FREE DOWNLOAD and yet SUPPORTING THEIR FAMILY?
If you have no sense in your heart and soul that abortion is morally wrong, nothing I will say here will change your mind.
True. I should have phrased it another way: if the secular government determines that none of us have a soul (separation of church and state) what would keep the government from passing laws to kill old people who are sucking up resources and infants who are disabled? For that matter, why not forced abortions to keep the population in check?
Ah-ha!
You’re describing the CHI COMS!
carmody wrote:
“True. I should have phrased it another way: if the secular government determines that none of us have a soul (separation of church and state) what would keep the government from passing laws to kill old people who are sucking up resources and infants who are disabled? For that matter, why not forced abortions to keep the population in check?”
You answered your own question. If the people delegate enough of their power to the government to forbid abortion, they have delegated enough of their power to the government to do all the rest of the things you list.
10. America is the last superpower and runs the world.He gets 7 out of 10 but misses on the big ones.9. America is a Christian country.
3. Abortion is murder.
Are you asserting that it doesn't matter if a fetus has a soul, and that it is worthy because it has the potential to have a soul?
No. Though I will say that the talk about a 'soul' entering a fetus at some point thus making it human is most often a means people use to excuse their aborting of it since they just got in under the wire: Hey, it didn't have a soul so it wasn't human so I didn't murder it so I shouldn't have to feel bad about it.
The origin of this is probably the story of God breathing into Adam and Adam becoming a 'living soul'. Notice, though, God didn't breathe life into Eve. Her life was derived from Adam's. So does that mean that women (or Eve) have no soul?
Some would say (and I have heard them say it), well, it's when they start breathing that the spirit enters into them. If that's so, then they can't use God's breathing into Adam as the justification for the concept of breathing in air as the vehicle of soul delivery. God may have breathed into Adam, but he doesn't do it for anyone else. There is no such doctrine taught in the Bible.
For that matter, all air-breathing animals are described in Genesis as having 'the breath of life', but they are described as being qualitatively different than Adam and Eve. The animals having the 'breath of life' doesn't constitute their getting a soul and being human because of it. The word translated as 'living soul' isn't referring to the concept of an immortal spirit anyway. It's better translated as 'living being'.
Besides, as far as what the Bible teaches about the unborn, it is about as far as one can get from an idea of the unborn child not being human: "Lord, you knew me before I ever was; before I put on flesh, you knew me." The unborn John was said to have leapt in Elizabeth's womb for joy at hearing Mary's salutation. This doesn't support the unbreathing non-souled fetus hypothesis.
But maybe that happened after 'quickening', after the soul entered the fetus. "quickening" is another idea used to excuse abortions, as though before this point the fetus was inert and soulless, after which it was obviously active and living. This is merely a matter of phenomenology. Though there may be a point before which a woman can feel the fetus move, there is not a point before which the fetus isn't actively developing according to its own time table. Weird, though not surprising, that people should use some point where something about the fetus becomes obvious to them as the point before which they can feel comfortable in deciding to off it. If obviousness is the criterion, then the obviousness of the missed menstruation should be enough. And, also not surprisingly, it is enough for those who were anxiously hoping for conception. That point marks for them the beginning of their child.
Another interesting thing about people arguing for abortion is the issue of 'viability' by which they mean 'capable of living without relying on the mother'. Now, if someone throws a lazy, insolent 18-year-old out of the house, some would likely say that he had it coming and that the parent wasn't being particularly evil because an 18-year-old should be able to start fending for himself. The same action at earlier and earlier ages is progressively seen as more irresponsible on the parents' part, even leading to child protective service intervention, removal of the child, or jail. However, in the case of an unborn child anything goes. Some would argue that abortions shouldn't take place after the fetus is 'viable', but this simply is saying "You can't kill it if it is capable of being cared for by someone other than yourself, but if it's totally dependent on you for its life, you may kill it with impunity." "No, Judge. I didn't murder the guy by letting him drop six stories to his death because I was holding onto his hand and his life was totally dependent on me."
The 'lack of soul' argument is a variation on the 'it doesn't look human yet, so it probably isn't' argument. I call that ontogenocentrism. It's sort of like ethnocentrism. Many tribes' names for themselves translate as 'the people', 'the humans'. Those outside are considered to be outside the human classification, or at least outside 'true civilized humanity'. That thing living in dirt and filth with bones through its nose isn't civilized, though maybe with a lot of work it could be. That little 8 week old fetus doesn't look completely human, so it probably isn't, yet, though maybe it eventually could be. For that matter, if you were to scale up a newborn to adult size, it would look like some Hollywood horror. People categorize and make distinctions that don't necessarily have any ontological borders. So when people talk about a fertilized egg not being a hen or an acorn not being a tree, they are sidestepping the issue. A fertilized egg is not a hen, but both are equally chicken. An acorn isn't a tree, but both are equally oak. At conception, a genetically unique individual comes into existence and continues through time sometimes over a hundred years. At various stages it is called various names, but at all stages it is fully human.
The so-called 'abortion debate' is one place where one can see that which is one of humanity's defining characteristics--the ability to dream up a reason for anything it wants to do. The question so few people seem to go on to ask is why people feel so compelled to have a need for self-justification in order to offset self-loathing.
Sorry, abortion is murder—the killing of an innocent human person.
>>But thanks for revealing yourself as a communist who is opposed to anyone supporting their family as a professional writer.<<
No one here is opposed to supporting one’s family,
Everyone here is against using FR as your free advertising.
That’s what Repeal The 17th and everyone here is against.
Those long time FReepers who post all the time can put in a plug but if you are using FR for just advertising, Uncool.
Killing a baby is not murder. You are a sick man.
Yeah right.
Not that so much a rational as it is a rationalist review. Libertarians do have such a bug up their keisters when it comes to Christianity. Human life begins before the young humans exit the womb yet abortion has special politicized exemptions for it that no other surgeries have. Hmm, wonder why? Perhaps the might of the big humans trumps the rights of the little ones.
America was indeed a Christian country and it took the anti-Christians many decades to accomplish their goal of stripping the country of her religious heritage. It was Christianity that gave rise to America, no other faith. Others came here because of the tolerance afforded by a Christian nation, else why bother coming?
I wish I could argue with you...
By your reasoning: If the people delegate enough of their power to the government to forbid prostitution, murder, and robbery, they have delegated enough of their power to the government to do anything.
If you determine abortion up to the 9th month is not murder because the body has no soul until it takes it’s first breath, then the government which is already separating from our Judeo Christian foundation, can use atheism to make evil laws for the good of the human soul-less race and planet earth.
You’ve declared unborn babies have no soul based on your personal belief and then use that belief to justify abortion. The majority of Americans disagree. And since there is no proof of soul to satisfy un-believers the law should err on the side of the unborn baby. It is a slippery slope from first-movement, to first-breath, to first-steps, to first-words. At what point is the newborn infant fully human and deserving of protection under the law? You and Obama say first breath. In many Godless nation’s it’s after first breath.
If you aren’t sure, then NOT killing the baby seems to be the prudent choice. If you aren’t sure and still kill the baby because you THINK the soul hasn’t entered yet, you are simply a murderer with a good rationalization.
Did you notice him trying to super-complicate his abortion argument? Yeah, ending the life of an unborn child is murder. They say that the kids aren’t people. The same argument people used for slavery.
Your right your not superior.
But you are the most stiff necked stubborn and thick headed.
Have you read much about the history of the various occupations? With the entirely honorable exception of Denmark and Norway, and the surprising partial exceptions of Serbia, Italy and Hungary, most of the regimes in the occupied countries cooperated in the hunt for Jews. Some were highly enthusiastic, like Croatia and Slovakia. Even the Dutch and French were in general helpful to the Gestapo.
I don't have any statistics, but the facts are widely available. That's why the state of Israel has honored those who resisted and helped protect Jews.
Just curious. Absent a police force paid by taxes, how are the free market investigators paid?
Most crimes are committed against poor people, who don’t have the money to pay for an investigation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.