Tiller aborted

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't see it as wrong but I wouldn't want to see it for the same reason I wouldn't want to see anything gross. I wouldn't want to see the inside of a septic tank or a pile of any medical waste, but I don't see using the bathroom or performing surgery as wrong.


BTW I'm disgusted by your comparing abortion to the Holocaust - where millions of people actually capable of thought and who had loved ones suffered and died. I'm sure a survivor of the Holocaust would slap you across the face for saying that.

^ More like of perfect example of your apparently deeply bitter hatred of religious people.

Well, at least you're taking her seriously and respecting her beliefs.

Your reflexive dismissal of all her points en masse speaks volumes about the limitations of your thinking.

Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Jun 2009, 4:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

judging from what I've seen on this topic, I have more than enough reason. You want to force us to accept a morality we don't agree with. I will fight to preserve my independence from your personal beliefs.

They weren't her points, they were blatant plagiarism, a copy-pate. And I showed in my response that shadowgirl wasn't even able to copy a decent argument.

Presuming, Ragtime, that maybe Tiller was going to give it all up as soon as he got out of church, and truly accept Jesus, it was gods will that he live. So the guy that killed him thwarted gods will (plus 'thou shall not kill/murder').

In essence, the killer made a deal with Satan to give him Tillers soul before it could be saved. In order to do this, he had to forfeit his own soul. Thats two more souls lost when it could have been none(only god knows).

Now along comes Ragtime, who says "Good job killing Tiller. Good job thwarting gods will. The devil has his due, and I(Ragtime) approve. It should happen more often. Ragtime is pleased that Satan gets the souls and not god.

What does that say about your salvation sir?

Yes, murder is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at.

Now... try to graduate the first grade, and instead of reciting a principle, imagine an actual situation , one in which it's not possible that no one get hurt. Imagine you approach a terrorist who is about to kill 60,000 people. He is looking at you with a maniacal smile and gibbering something about Allah. He then informs you, with his hand on the trigger, that he will kill all 60,000 with explosives in three seconds, and he doesn't care what you do. He then begins counting: 3... 2...
You have a gun aimed at him. Do you shoot him, or do you let him kill them?

Not so easy, is it? Reciting "Murder is wrong" doesn't exactly get everyone out of that situation in one piece.

Sorry for the brow-beating, but you seemed to need it.

Ragtime, does your analogy hold? Are the situations indeed similar? That point has not been established yet, so you aren't arguing from a common framework. That just serves to annoy people and causes a negative perception of you and viewpoints you claim to represent (ie Christianity).

I think some of Ragtime's analogies are fairly decent. Yesterday's snafu aside...I feel more inclined today to say so. I think the majority of people agree that killing is bad/wrong, but Ragtime has given some good examples to show some killing is considered legal, some is considered necessary or justified, some is even considered heroic. Some killing is even considered to be compasionate. I imagine many people have very strong views on all types of killing. I would expect no less of the OP. I can understand your annoyance due to the christianity slant. It kind of reminds me of Dox's recent post...guilt by association, type of thing. But he has endured a lot in this thread. He has had attacks on his sense of morality, himself as a person, and even his own spirituality. I often keep my views on morality to myself because there is always someone willing to attack it, regardless of what one believes. I am not so brave in this regard. Like you, there have been a few in this thread who have been kind enough only addressed his viewpoint, but I see his side of the coin to be just like the ones who have no issue with abortion...just another side of the coin.

The thing is, his analogies are based on assumptions that others have explicitly denied. Making analogies based on contested assumptions just exacerbates people's frustration. My annoyance with Ragtime is the same as my annoyance with the pro-choicers: both sides take their own assumptions as a given and refuse to see that the other side is arguing from a different starting point.


I'm Christian, it's not the Christianity slant that's bugging me. It's the misrepresentation of Christianity and the twisting of the religion I share to support a partisan agenda.

Has it occurred to anyone that aborting a fetus is NOT murder (either legally or morally) since a fetus is not a human person.

ruveyn

That is what I meant. I know you are a christian. Sorry if I was not clear.

Then what did that make you at the time? If the baby wasn't a person then then he/she never could be. You are as you start out.

Last edited by Shadowgirl on 03 Jun 2009, 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

According to the pro-lifers, it is. Now, we have to decide who is right on this point. Is a fetus a person or not? How do we define personhood as a society?

So a caterpillar is actually a butterfly, if it isn't a butterfly it never could be. Everything is as it starts out.

Things change, shadowgirl. I was once an infant, then a small child, now I am (physically at least) a grown man. I did not emerge from my mother's womb a six-foot-tall bearded computer geek. I am not the same thing I was five, ten, or fifteen years ago. You are postulating a sort of constancy that is not justified. A newly fertilized egg is clearly different from a blastocyst is clearly different from a fetus is clearly different from an infant is clearly different from a grown human adult. The boundaries are somewhat fuzzy, yes, and we have to draw a line somewhere. Where should we draw the line, and why?