1 2 3
Would this "pro-life" idea extend to the idea of abolishing the death penalty Lou?
9/29/2009 10:51:54 PM
At least tell us what your corroborating evidence (i.e. OUTSIDE the Bible) for the soul being there on conception is, rather than when brain waves can first be detected. Besides, considering that the penalty in the Tanakh for causing an abortion against the mother's will better matched that for second degree manslaughter than first degree murder, I'm not so sure your lawgiver really agrees with you about abortion being a subset of murder.
And if this is about euthanasia...er, is suicide necessarily quite the sin you think it is? I'm presuming that the person in question went through plenty of counseling first...
9/29/2009 10:54:21 PM
NO TRUE SCOTSMAN EATS HIS PORRIDGE WITH SUGAR!
9/29/2009 10:56:00 PM
9/29/2009 10:57:55 PM
This is pathetic.
9/29/2009 11:10:37 PM
Tell me, do ye put sugar in yer porridge, Scotsman?
9/29/2009 11:15:00 PM
Well, at least he realises that killing people is not the way to go. Probably.
9/29/2009 11:32:32 PM
It's not a No True Scotsman, guys.
RationalWiki sayeth unto us
: "Broadly speaking, the fallacy does not apply if there is a clear and well-understood definition of what membership in a group requires ("no honest man would lie like that!"). " And, uh, they're right, and applicable here. Being pro-life means opposing murder, so murderers are not pro-life.
On the other hand:
1) Kat is right; someone who's pro-death penalty is not truly pro-life.
2) The second half of Lou's post is moronic. A clump of cells with no functioning brain is not alive; the analogy is false.
(Edited to clarify.)
9/29/2009 11:42:01 PM
What the fuck does pro choice have to do with disabled people?
9/29/2009 11:45:26 PM
As usual, most of the comments are just as moronic as the quote.
I guess being an idiot isn't a fundie thing, it's just a human thing.
9/30/2009 12:07:47 AM
Yeah Anon above me, grab that moral high ground! I mean fundies aren't human at all duh!
Seriously though if you are surprised to find stupid comments anywhere on the internet then you are indeed quite the naive fool.
9/30/2009 12:26:19 AM
When the principle of pro-life places the mother at risk, and effecftively kills her, does that negate the stance of pro-life?
By definition anyone pro-life must be against any kind of preventable or unecesary death. However, given the complications that can occur during pregnancy and childbirth situations can arise where a choice must be made between mother and child. How does the pro-life philosophy handle this situation.
(to my understanding most are more than happy to let the mother die in favour of the unborn. However, that still violates the principles of pro-life)
9/30/2009 12:35:31 AM
@Orion: Talk about proving my point.
Try reading the post again. Then try thinking for a few seconds. THEN tell me where you see ANYTHING about fundies not being human.
9/30/2009 12:48:13 AM
Near as I can tell most pro-choicers condemned that murder, I know I did. And to the best of my knowledge, this is the only known murder of a pro-lifer for his stance. Most pro-choicers I know condemn violence in any way shape or form.
Whereas many "pro-lifers" were dancing in the street after Tiller's murder, as well as other doctor's murders and clinic bombings, advocate killing women who have had abortions, and love to use the term "justifiable homicide".
9/30/2009 1:11:55 AM
Summarising, everybody is pro-life. It depends, though, which life you're are pro.
9/30/2009 2:27:21 AM
Surely, unless the victim chose to be murdered, a murdering "pro-choicer" is no more pro-choice than a murdering "pro-lifer" is pro-life?
Jeesy Creesy, if you have to use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, can you at least get it right?
9/30/2009 2:49:52 AM
Pro-lifers except for women who develop serious health problems during pregnancy...and convicted criminals...and brown people in the desert who may or may not be terrorists...yeah.
9/30/2009 3:07:09 AM
Depends IMHO, on how broad your definition of life is.
Strictly speaking every cell within your body is alive. Even cancer cells, or any bacteriae that cause diseases.
Of course regarding body cells (including the cells that form a fetus) it cannot be called sentient life or life that would be independently viable (unless maybe grown by researchers in specialised nutrient solutions).
9/30/2009 3:25:33 AM
@Wehpudicabok: True, but when half of pro-lifers seem to support the murder of doctors, escorts, and anyone else even remotely associated with abortion, Lou's message falls somewhat flat.
You are right, even if it does also mean that so many "pro-lifers" aren't. Not that that's anything new.
@David B.: Win. An internets for you, sir.
9/30/2009 3:30:40 AM
Where are the protests outside the jails and state capitols protesting against the death penalty? Pro-life is mere humbug unless it goes right across the board.
9/30/2009 4:59:26 AM
Evil Feminist Person
9/30/2009 5:11:10 AM
When my mother was pregnant with my sibling, her doctor told her that if medical complications arose during the pregnancy, his priority would be to save the fetus, not her. How the fuck is that "pro-life"? I'm really sick of that term for these hypocrites.
And my mom got herself a new doctor.
9/30/2009 5:12:10 AM
The first paragraph made me think Lou had some hope. He seemed to clearly recognize the hypocrisy of someone killing Tiller, or bombing an abortion clinic, "out of respect for life."
Then the second paragraph blew this theory all to hell.
9/30/2009 5:17:54 AM
You just couldn't say the first line and leave it at that eh? Geeze.
9/30/2009 5:37:36 AM
"The difference is that when a "pro-life" advocate kills someone their actions prove that they are not authentically pro-life. It's kind of like a vegetarian who eats hamburgers. "
How about when they enthusiastically promote the death penalty? Does that make them not authentic?
"On the other hand, when a pro-choice advocate murders a disabled man like today, they're just doing what they always do. It's just that this time their victim is older than usual."
How about when they support government health care for poor children? Is that what they always do?
9/30/2009 5:43:40 AM
1 2 3