Comments on: Has U.S. abortion language created climate of violence? http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/ Religion, faith and ethics Sat, 23 Apr 2016 23:25:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: George Harrison http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-3/#comment-12493 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:27:54 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12493 I know most religions profess peace, but hasn’t history taught us a different lesson? How much blood has been spilled, how many lives lost, due to religious wars?
One could argue that religion itself produces a violent culture-it inspires a believers with beliefs so powerful they blind people from their once commonly shared humanity and give way only to divisive branches of “salvation”.
So maybe it’s not the abortion debate that may produce a climate of violence, it may be the way the religious climate interacts and behaves.
Religion is a personal choice, and our founding fathers knew that, the first European immigrants knew this as well, and so that may be the only compromise. If religion is a personal choice doesn’t it follow that abortion is too?

]]>
By: Georg Harrison http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12492 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:14:52 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12492 Reply to Ben Continued

As far as outlawing the killing of animals by other animals (non-human animals) goes… really? First off as I said we humans have a choice as to what we eat, animals for the most part do not, and in any case we most likely would want to leave their diets to them because we would probably disrupt their ecosystem / food chain. This is a minor point. My central argument is that animals don’t have much of a choice, where as we do, and thus it is in my opinion immoral to kill an animal for consumption when perfectly good alternatives exist, and in many cases are healthier. As far as eating animals is concerned I could make the compromise that if they are not factory farmed it’s not too bad, or if their farming methods are sustainable it is in my book an acceptable loss, because it is an acceptable gain. No, I’m not being a hypocrite, I still have my ideals I’m just being a incremental realist. In any case if you wish to discuss any issue here further we can exchange e-mail addresses and continue our polite discussion.
As far as Einstein is concerned, yes I 100% agree if he were to be aborted the world would have been deprived of his genius, and that would have been a shame. You may be also correct that the world may have seen many more Einstein types or Da Vinci or other arguably great genius however, this argument of potential is not good. The world may have also aborted some Hitlers, Stalins, Mussolinis, (insert despot/tyrant/mass murders here). So in this case it would have saved us from their wrath. Because we cannot really quantify nor make very good probability statements about this argument I would say it does not help, nor hinder this debate, at this time. So, as you said there is no way to know.
My defensiveness was well placed, and you agreed with me that not all human life is equal, which is what I was trying to prove, by choosing to save me instead of your father in the thought experiment. I’m not advocating for a state sponsored human sterilization program. What I’m more leaning to is the right to die, and abortion, it’s more the choice of these things. This is also a good point on logical extensions. Just because something is logical does not mean it is necessarily neither smart nor correct. I think you agree with me on this statement. So, because it would be ill-advised to sponsor a state run human killing program, let’s not. End of story. If you think my arguments lead down this road I’m afraid you’re mistaken. All I was trying to prove was that human lives are unequal, and that people should be given the choice to do what they want with them in very specific situations.
As far as the thought experiment is concerned, it seems you placed more worth on my own life than your fathers. So we were not equal. Had we been equal then we both would have died or all three of us would have died. So it seems that not all human lives are equal. I think that human lives are plenty valuable; I just find some to be more valuable than others. Well, I know some things about God, however you are correct in believing me to be an atheist. I don’t particularly prescribe to your God, however I would be more than willing to talk to you about religion, the bible, etc. As I’ve said I would be more than willing to set up a communication link outside of this blog to further discuss any issue here or new ones. You’re a pretty intelligent person.
Oh and technically murder is a personal choice, and one lives with the consequences—lawfully and consciously. Abortion is the same way, I’m sure some people regret it, however where we disagree is the law portion and whether it is applicable in the same way to the abortion of a fetus as it is to the murder of a person.

]]>
By: George Harrison http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12491 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:14:11 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12491 Reply to Ben

Point / Counter Point
Personal Responsibility
I agree if you find yourself in circumstances unfavorable to becoming a good parent / taking care of children then you should not have unprotected sex. However, accidents do occur, and when they do occur I feel that you should have the choice of rectifying them to the best of your ability. If for you that means getting an abortion I feel that, that avenue should be left open. Why punish yourself, your partner, and the child? Abortion is not a push button solution. It is a difficult road for those who choose it. It is also a lesson hard learned. Yes there are repeaters but, I would argue the majority of people learn their lessons, and if they are taught and encouraged by society to be more responsible i.e. that abortion is not to be taken lightly, it is not the only and final option on the table, then it may save more people’s lives. This I feel even you would agree with me on. (the whole education about abortion should not be taken lightly)
Yes the world is also beautiful but, pain and pleasure they are not equal. They do not rain down on us all equally. Some of us feel one more than the other. Unfortunately. So, for some it may be in their best interest.
Racism/Speciesism
Firstly, I am 100% not advocating for the consumption of fetuses. Furthermore, I am not advocating the killing and consumption of any living animal. I would like to point out that we humans have a choice when selecting what we will eat for nourishment. Hence, the vegan/veg. lifestyle. Other animals, such as lions, crocodiles, and many others do not have that luxury or even perhaps the mental capacity to defy their instincts when finding/eating food. We do and that’s where morality steps in.
Secondly, I do not consider you a racist. (I trust you on this) However, I do consider you a specieist, and here’s why.
“If I had to choose between preventing the death of a human or an animal, I would choose to save the human in every case.”
By this statement you are saying that no matter what, under any circumstance a non-human animal will die. You are not giving the animal equal consideration of whether or not it deserves to live. You are simply selecting the human to live as a blanket win all trump choice. The whole equal consideration thing means you think about it, you weigh out the pros and cons of each scenario. What I’m arguing is that humans and non-humans are closer than we think and we should rethink our relationship to animals.
As far as being specieist against humans this is entirely not true, and my statement about Einstein should have proven this. However, if faced with a situation I would look at both the human and the animal to try and make a justifiable conclusion. I would not choose the animal over the human in all cases. In many human fetus example-cases perhaps I would, depending on the animal, but I can’t concretely tell you which one I would save unless more information is presented. So, in fact I am giving both equal consideration.

]]>
By: brian lee http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12488 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 06:48:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12488 anon, not one posting from conservatives have tried to justify the killing of tiller.the guy who perpetrated the crime should be charged with 1st degree murder and executed if found guilty.i disagree with baby dismemberment, not that tiller should have been killed.my only concern as a “spirit filled” christian that this guy could be accepted in a church congregation and carry out greeters duties as though he had a normal occupation,this is so bazaar.although he seemed to lavish money on people that justified him,like the state governor for instance, i feel sorry for his family but i feel no remorse over his demise because what he did was despicable in my opinion.but the bible says”vengeance is mine says the lord”it is not ours and most of the god fearing people i know would not hurt a fly, me include

]]>
By: Anon http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12479 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:51:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12479 Perhaps the real question should be:

Has U.S religious views created a climate of violence?

Or has it just created a climate where people try to implicitly justify a murder, by trying to equate the murder of a man to a medical procedure they personally disagree with?

]]>
By: Mariano http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12476 Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:37:44 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12476 Just as abortion in general is considered without regard to cause and effect to the likes of; I am pregnant now what rather than considering ahead of time whether to engage in pregnancy causing activities the question “Has U.S. abortion language created climate of violence?” misses the point that it is abortion that, by its very nature, created a climate of violence—abortion is violence itself.

]]>
By: ED http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12458 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:44:50 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12458 Someone here said “crying for aborted babies here will do nothing to help genocide in other countries”. Actually the more that we desensitize ourselves to the fact that what grows in the womb is human life–(is it a vegetable, mineral, or animal living and growing inside?–no , its human life) the more lives outside the womb become just a little more cheap, a little less worth getting worked up over. If mothers’, who ought to be the most sensitive human beings to human life being precious, as they carry it in their wombs for 9 months, are helped to devalue that life within when its inconvient or posses a difficutly for their future, well then we have dulled the sensitivity to life of a voice that might othewise cry out immediatly, loudly and long about all the other human lives taken in various ways. To have ever to have allowed abortion to be evil was to cause us to see each other as less valuable, and when that happens its all the more easier to do things on both sides of murder that are injust, to ones fellow man

]]>
By: Anon http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12453 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:44:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12453 I always thought the ‘virtuous unbaptised’ were supposed to end up on the first circle of hell? Or was that just in Dante’s fiction?

I know the Vatican recently said that unborn children end up in Heaven (and not Limbo as they had previously insisted for centuries).

But this might just have been part of the “Super Fun Happy Overhaul” that the church did under Pope Spud to try and become more friendly to the young people.

So much for a simple issue…

]]>
By: brian lee http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12446 Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:24:42 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12446 c,d. walker,your remarks about unborn children and newly born children not being born with sin,is this part of a progressive interpretation of biblical text?or is it your own interpretation?i hear many new theories from our “all roads lead to god “new age christians which confuses people like me with fundamental original beliefs.in the old testiment when a jewish baby was born it was suggested that the mother had brought sin into the world because the baby was born with the sin of adam and eve,so there was a period of time that had to elapse, and i think there had to be some sort of separation before they were accepted into the community.also because there is no specific mention about abortion rights in the bible, this is always used as an excuse by progressives that want their faith to compliment what they believe politically,so their interpretation is stretched beyond imagination and normally to follow a particular lifestyle.the scripture about the plank and splinter in the persons eye is used to make us all aware of our own faults,before we comment on some other person,s sin.but as true believers although we cannot chastise none believers we are expected to gently correct each other.

]]>
By: Ben http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/06/02/has-us-abortion-language-created-climate-of-violence/comment-page-2/#comment-12427 Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:37:56 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/?p=6194#comment-12427 @anthony

Furthermore, you wrote, “Sometimes life is not worth keeping for the greater good”. What, then separates you from the person who took George Tiller’s life?

Judgement, you will say. And you may indeed be right. However, since I can not trust your judgement anymore than you can trust the murderer of George Tiller, don’t you see that your solution will never work? It requires SOMEONE making a value judgement of human life based on a set of metrics that may be inaccurate, as was the case in this murder.

]]>