Question For Clydeside_Sheep

[robbojunior]

 

 

If you cant make distinctions between the three then you probably are struggling.

 

If anti death penalty have to be anti war? That another hypocrite view?

 

Are you opposed to all wars due to killing of innocent folk?

Me? Nope but its not my beliefs we're talking about.

I don't believe in absolutes. Life is much too complicated to be definitive on morality (which is subjective and therefore inherently fallible anyway)

 

The argument was about whether Trump is a hypocrite for taking an absolute position on something on the basis of being pro life whilst being happy to continue knowingly sanctioning the killing of innocent people elsewhere.

[Jds192]

Me? Nope but its not my beliefs we're talking about.

I don't believe in absolutes. Life is much too complicated to be definitive on morality (which is subjective and therefore inherently fallible anyway)

 

The argument was about whether Trump is a hypocrite for taking an absolute position on something on the basis of being pro life whilst being happy to continue knowingly sanctioning the killing of innocent people elsewhere.

 

I am guessing you are anti death penalty judging by posts so far which has to make you anti war or a hypocrite.

 

Same rules.

 

What people he knowingly killing elsewhere?

 

It is this type of twisted logic that pisses folk off and gets the likes of Trump voted.

[robbojunior]

 

I am guessing you are anti death penalty judging by posts so far which has to make you anti war or a hypocrite.

 

Same rules.

 

What people he knowingly killing elsewhere?

 

It is this type of twisted logic that pisses folk off and gets the likes of Trump voted.

Yeah I'm anti war. What kind of person is pro-war? I accept the reality that it happens, and if someone starts a war against you or your allies, then it would be morally wrong not to defend yourself and engage, but fucking right I'm anti war. What a daft question.

[Jds192]

Yeah I'm anti war. What kind of person is pro-war? I accept the reality that it happens, and if someone starts a war against you or your allies, then it would be morally wrong not to defend yourself and engage, but fucking right I'm anti war. What a daft question.

 

If you think there are any circumstances where going to war is acceptable then that makes you a hypocrite if against the death penalty as innocent folk will die.

 

I oppose the death penalty which can take innocent lives.

I support war which can take innocent lives.

 

That correct?

 

Seems to all be less straightforward this idea of hypocrisy when flipped back on you views.

[robbojunior]

 

If you think there are any circumstances where going to war is acceptable then that makes you a hypocrite if against the death penalty as innocent folk will die.

 

That correct?

 

Seems to all be less straightforward this idea of hypocrisy when flipped back on you views.

Wrong because I never made the statement about no one having the right to kill an innocent person. You did.

[Jds192]

Wrong because I never made the statement about no one having the right to kill an innocent person. You did.

 

So you are not against the death penalty as innocent folk may die?

[robbojunior]

 

So you are not against the death penalty as innocent folk may die?

I'm against it because it is pointless, achieves nothing that letting them rot in jail doesn't, and kills innocent people. If the death penalty worked, and deterred would be murderers to the point that murders ceased completely or even reduced notably (which they have not in states with the death penalty) then perhaps the 'collateral damage' of wrongly convicted who are put to death would be a necessary evil of a greater moral cause (eradicating murder). But it doesn't. Categorically it has no notable effect on murder rates, therefore in my opinion is immoral and senseless.

[Jds192]

I'm against it because it is pointless, achieves nothing that letting them rot in jail doesn't, and kills innocent people. If the death penalty worked, and deterred would be murderers to the point that murders ceased completely or even reduced notably (which they have not in states with the death penalty) then perhaps the 'collateral damage' of wrongly convicted who are put to death would be a necessary evil of a greater moral cause (eradicating murder). But it doesn't. Categorically it has no notable effect on murder rates, therefore in my opinion is immoral and senseless.

 

Exactly so there are a lot of reasons people make decisions on subjects that dont have to contradict one another.

 

If someone is against the idea of the death penalty as state playing god does that make them a hypocrite for supporting the choice to abort?

[robbojunior]

 

Exactly so there are a lot of reasons people make decisions on subjects that dont have to contradict one another.

 

If someone is against the idea of the death penalty as state playing god does that make them a hypocrite for supporting the choice to abort?

Its the 'pro-life' bit that makes it hypocritcal. Pro lifers say no one has the right to take a life, yet are happy to support the death sentence. That's hypocritical. If you can make a logical reason for being anti abortion but pro death penalty then fair enough, but I've not heard it from the pro lifers.

 

You may pick holes in my logic by all means, but my stance is that death penalty is a double negative - it achieves no discernible positive benefit to society and kills innocents.

 

Abortion is much less cut and dried in my opinion.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that a potential life is aborted because it doesn't suit the lifestyle of someone who was reckless or irresponsible or changed their mind, but you could argue that by aborting the would be parents lives, and their friends and families lives are improved by not having the child and a potentially horrible existence for the child itself, not to mention many foetuses do not make full term anyway. Rape victims, the benefits are even easier to argue. That's not to say we should just approve of this attitude if it's all fine and dandy to get an abortion and do more to educate people on not getting pregnant if they don't want a baby, or to try and prevent rape, but it's a less clear cut than the death penalty in my opinion.

[Jds192]

Its the 'pro-life' bit that makes it hypocritcal. Pro lifers say no one has the right to take a life, yet are happy to support the death sentence. That's hypocritical. If you can make a logical reason for being anti abortion but pro death penalty then fair enough, but I've not heard it from the pro lifers.

 

You may pick holes in my logic by all means, but my stance is that death penalty is a double negative - it achieves no discernible positive benefit to society and kills innocents.

 

Abortion is much less cut and dried in my opinion.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that a potential life is aborted because it doesn't suit the lifestyle of someone who was reckless or irresponsible or changed their mind, but you could argue that by aborting the would be parents lives, and their friends and families lives are improved by not having the child and a potentially horrible existence for the child itself, not to mention many foetuses do not make full term anyway. Rape victims, the benefits are even easier to argue. That's not to say we should just approve of this attitude if it's all fine and dandy to get an abortion and do more to educate people on not getting pregnant if they don't want a baby, or to try and prevent rape, but it's a less clear cut than the death penalty in my opinion.

 

The term pro life is used in relation to abortion and the deliberate killing of an innocent life.

 

It has no relation to someones opinion to a convicted killer on death row and people are allowed to distinguish the two even if you wont.

 

No more than saying death sentences are playing god and abortions are not.

 

Trumps opinion on abortion differs on cases of rape and incest and it is unlikely it will be made unlawful in the US anyway.

[robbojunior]

He should just build a wall around all the abortion clinics

[Clydeside_Sheep]

I'm against it because it is pointless, achieves nothing that letting them rot in jail doesn't, and kills innocent people. If the death penalty worked, and deterred would be murderers

Totally agree. I think its not even intended as a deterrent but as a form of revenge - which is an unhealthy sentiment to be in the air when justice is the true agenda.

 

In the US in particular revenge and justice often seem to be conflated.

The death penalty would only really be justified if there was no effective prison system to contain a prisoner for the safety of the public - and its hard to imagine how that could be the case in the modern day.

 

 

Abortion is much less cut and dried in my opinion.

It doesn't sit comfortably with me that a potential life is aborted

It isn't a potential life, its a life. We know this, both from science and common sense.

 

Imo the reason society is less condemnatory of abortion (vs death penalty) is because we dont see the face of the person being killed, or hear their voice.

 

Also, while the death penalty routine is well known (death row, last meal, the "audience" etc) the MSM covers up the nature of abortion and associated details, such as profiteering from the sale of the resultant body parts (for experimentation), women who are severely injured by the procedure and the general medical standards where these things take place.

 

And the deliberate dissemination of erroneous information means that a lot of social opinion is based on garbage - faulty understanding of the law, faulty understanding of human reproduction, faulty understanding of the chief issues etc.

 

Abortion will go, eventually. The main resistance will be down to the fact that things have gone too far for it to be something easily reversed (like any genocide).

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Trumps opinion on abortion differs on cases of rape and incest and it is unlikely it will be made unlawful in the US anyway.

Apparently the new administration has said it will provide a "significant presence" to take part in the annual Washington March for Life, the largest pro-life rally in the world which typically receives minimal (if any) media coverage.

 

Last year, despite adverse winter blizzard warnings, there were still >40,000 people completing the route. (The New York Times reported the attendance as "hundreds").

 

In normal weather, 100s of 1000s turn out - 650,000 in 2013.

[Jds192]

Apparently the new administration has said it will provide a "significant presence" to take part in the annual Washington March for Life, the largest pro-life rally in the world which typically receives minimal (if any) media coverage.

 

Last year, despite adverse winter blizzard warnings, there were still >40,000 people completing the route. (The New York Times reported the attendance as "hundreds").

 

In normal weather, 100s of 1000s turn out - 650,000 in 2013.

 

We will see. I dont agree it will be made illegal but it will all play out.

 

There could be marches just as big if not bigger against it. Doesnt prove anything,

[Jds192]

Trumps 'pro life' stance and the executive order he signed the other day which denies funds to organisations that offer contraception and health care if they give abortion as an option has been shown to INCREASE abortion numbers.

 

His actions are killing more unborn babies not saving them.

[craegDAMH]

One question: If abortion is such a great evil as you say it is, why is your church so opposed to contraception which would undoubtedly reduce the number of abortions carried out worldwide? Isn't it just because your puritan cult wants there to be a punishment for promiscuity?

 

Ahem, @@Clydeside_Sheep

[Poodler]

Totally agree. I think its not even intended as a deterrent but as a form of revenge - which is an unhealthy sentiment to be in the air when justice is the true agenda.

 

In the US in particular revenge and justice often seem to be conflated.

The death penalty would only really be justified if there was no effective prison system to contain a prisoner for the safety of the public - and its hard to imagine how that could be the case in the modern day.

 

 

 

It isn't a potential life, its a life. We know this, both from science and common sense.

.

 

It's no more life than a tumour growing inside someone - do we stop removing them too? I've seen feotuses at work from 1 week to 35 weeks, aborted and stillborn. It's an entirely necessary procedure.

 

Religion and medicine don't mix well.

 

I was part of a team in 2010 that gave a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness who was critically ill. Fortunately I was off that day but the fallout lasted years and caused great stress to the medical team responsible. I was appalled at the actions and communications of thon barmy lot.

[Bluto10]

always found doctors to be be pretty decent in my experience.

 

Beer (already) tonight

Watch the man Utd hull game.

Duvels, as per

Nearly weekend.

[Guest milne_afc]

Dr Shipman was ace. Selected elderly loners for retrospective abortions. It's a pity he couldn't begin his work on the religious lot.

[1903Fitba]

always found doctors to be be pretty decent in my experience.

 

Beer (already) tonight

Watch the man Utd hull game.

Duvels, as per

Nearly weekend.

 

[Clydeside_Sheep]

 

Ahem, @@Clydeside_Sheep

 

@@craegDAMH

 

Craeg,

 

Contraception does not decrease abortion (just like it doesn't get rid of STDs either).

 

The modern era has seen the most abortions in all history, coinciding with the period of most widespread and easily available contraception.

 

Contraception says to people "use me and you can have consequence-free sex" and so people think the pleasure of sex has been uncoupled from its natural consequence - new life. And so people use contraception eagerly.

 

But, no form of contraception is 100% effective and even layered contraception can fail. So people go out and get their leg over and - oh dear- some of them get caught out and unwittingly create a new life.

 

But they didn't want to be a parent, they just wanted to ride the fat bird they met at the disco. Or the young couple really wanted to buy a house before having a kid. So they have an abortion, justified by their feeling like a victim because contraception let them down.

 

More meaningless sex = more contraceptive failures = more unwanted pregnancy = more abortions.

 

The main way to reduce abortions is for people to only have sex at a time when they are prepared to deal with the possible natural consequences of it. Traditionally, this is when in a solid relationship (marriage) and a family is actively desired.

 

Of course, putting thought into their behaviour and taking responsibility for their actions are completely alien concepts to many people in the modern era.

 

Another way to reduce abortions is for people to accept that a child with a cleft pallete, down syndrome or some other issue (big or small) is still a beautiful child, not some embarrassment to be disposed of.

 

I still remember the revulsion I felt at my wifes pregnancy scan when the midwife tactfully alluded we had the option to murder our child, if the scan showed that she was anything other than perfect. As it turns out, my daughter is perfect, but then I would think that regardless of what the scan had showed.

 

Btw contraception doesn't actually give us anything - women can control their fertility naturally, with the same success rate as artificial contraception.

[The Boofon]

Contraception reduces STD's Clydeside. That's undeniable.

[The Boofon]

Also do you only ever have sex when you want a baby?

 

?

[Bluto10]

One up the bum no harm dobe

[Clydeside_Sheep]

It's no more life than a tumour growing inside someone

That isn't true, its a human being as science demonstrates.

 

Right at conception, you have a form of life with 46 chromosomes (23 each from mother and father).

 

A form of life with 46 chromosomes is a human being.

 

Some other species have 46 chromosomes too, but its unlikely that a man and woman have managed to conceive a European Hare or Large Bentwing bat, for example.

 

Given the number of unborn children the NHS kills on an annual basis, it obviously doesn't want its staff knowing the truth.

 

Religion and medicine don't mix well.

The Catholic Church is the largest non-governmental provider of healthcare in the world.

 

It provides 26% of the worlds healthcare.

 

The many millions of people who rely on this as their only source of healthcare would disagree with you.

 

I was part of a team in 2010 that gave a blood transfusion to a Jehovah's Witness

I sympathise, those people are batshit crazy.

[Reed or deed]

@@craegDAMH

 

Craeg,

 

Contraception does not decrease abortion (just like it doesn't get rid of STDs either).

 

The modern era has seen the most abortions in all history, coinciding with the period of most widespread and easily available contraception.

 

Contraception says to people "use me and you can have consequence-free sex" and so people think the pleasure of sex has been uncoupled from its natural consequence - new life. And so people use contraception eagerly.

 

But, no form of contraception is 100% effective and even layered contraception can fail. So people go out and get their leg over and - oh dear- some of them get caught out and unwittingly create a new life.

 

But they didn't want to be a parent, they just wanted to ride the fat bird they met at the disco. Or the young couple really wanted to buy a house before having a kid. So they have an abortion, justified by their feeling like a victim because contraception let them down.

 

More meaningless sex = more contraceptive failures = more unwanted pregnancy = more abortions.

 

The main way to reduce abortions is for people to only have sex at a time when they are prepared to deal with the possible natural consequences of it. Traditionally, this is when in a solid relationship (marriage) and a family is actively desired.

 

Of course, putting thought into their behaviour and taking responsibility for their actions are completely alien concepts to many people in the modern era.

 

Another way to reduce abortions is for people to accept that a child with a cleft pallete, down syndrome or some other issue (big or small) is still a beautiful child, not some embarrassment to be disposed of.

 

I still remember the revulsion I felt at my wifes pregnancy scan when the midwife tactfully alluded we had the option to murder our child, if the scan showed that she was anything other than perfect. As it turns out, my daughter is perfect, but then I would think that regardless of what the scan had showed.

 

Btw contraception doesn't actually give us anything - women can control their fertility naturally, with the same success rate as artificial contraception.

 

Would you have thought the same if your daughter had came about from your wife being raped by a bus load of afghans?

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Contraception reduces STD's Clydeside. That's undeniable.

Yet again in the modern era, we see the period of the most widespread and easy availability of contraception coinciding with the period of most rampant STDs. Look at the HIV pandemic among homosexual men.

 

Best way to reduce STDs is for people to be monogamous and only have sex with people whose health-status is known to them.

[Big Man]

Just shag birds up the arse

 

Problem solved.

 

Or in the mouth...

 

I'm not talking about blow jobs here. I mean an actual mouth fuck.

[DD1903]

One up the bum no harm dobe

Me knees hurt

[Clydeside_Sheep]

Would you have thought the same if your daughter had came about from your wife being raped by a bus load of afghans?

The circumstances are horrible, but a child conceived through rape is personally as innocent and beautiful as a child conceived through love.

 

Its not the child's fault, s/he has no influence on the circumstances of their creation.