I mean, why doesn't the bible implicitly say that nailing people to trees, weaving them into cartwheels, and "burning out the evilness" is a BAD thing? Why is it SO easy to take things out of context, and twist them so that you can justify the needless suffering of millions of people? (I.E., Inquisition, Crusades, Salem, etc)
There are a lot of things that the Bible (or any other text of the time) fails to implicitly say. Take for examle "Thou shalt not kill" It doesn't launch into all the "except in self-defense, time of natl emergency, war or any of the other yada yada yadas." "Thou shalt not covet another man's wife"- "unless your old lady is cheating on you or the other womans husband is filing for divorce and they are already separated" How many pages do you think it would take for all the necessary disclaimers? Times and thinking was a lot simpler then. They weren't lawyers, thank goodness.
IP: Logged
04:08 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by maryjane: There are a lot of things that the Bible (or any other text of the time) fails to implicitly say. Take for examle "Thou shalt not kill" It doesn't launch into all the "except in self-defense, time of natl emergency, war or any of the other yada yada yadas." "Thou shalt not covet another man's wife"- "unless your old lady is cheating on you or the other womans husband is filing for divorce and they are already separated" How many pages do you think it would take for all the necessary disclaimers? Times and thinking was a lot simpler then. They weren't lawyers, thank goodness.
Well that's the problem then. The bible has been "simplified." So if they've left out specific details about what NOT to do, then why couldn't they have left out the "Oh, and incidently, God took 7 BILLION years to make the planet, but because your numbering system doesn't go past 1000, and you couldn't comprehend "billions" other than "lots" he called them 'days?'"
IP: Logged
04:16 PM
Cheever3000 Member
Posts: 12398 From: The Man from Tallahassee Registered: Aug 2001
Originally posted by Mach10: Given all the rest that is in the Bible, why doesn't it protect itself (and it's followers) from this sort of thing?
God doesn't need to "protect" His own Word.
Whoever believes it will believe it. The Bible depiction of a rich guy in Hell asking for someone to go back & tell his brothers so they will be saved, was told they still wouldn't believe even from someone who was brought back from the dead.
And regarding all the stuff "Christians" have done to others makes me think real Christians should use the more accurate label of "Christ-like". It's kind of hard to hide whether your actions are Christ-like or not.
IP: Logged
04:17 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Many crimes have been commited in the name of religion. The inquisition was a thinly veiled attempt at converting non-believers while taking away their money and properties. Many could not convert because of their religion. The crusades were to reclaim the holy land. For who? The one's trying to reclaim the land weren't even from that land. All of these crimes were committed by men claiming to represent their church or religion, when in fact they were distorting or even ignoring their own beliefs. Jesus had a simple message love thy brother. Forgive those that are truly repentant. Follow his example of good and love. We do get on each others nerves once in a while, but this doesn't give us the right to judge each other. We all will answer to the ultimate judge in the end. I choose to believe that there is something afterlife and I also believe that it is easier to be good to each other than to be evil. At least it feels better to do this. I don't feel good hurting people or making them mad, I would much rather try to help and foster good feelings than ill wishes.
IP: Logged
04:28 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by avengador1: Many crimes have been commited in the name of religion. The inquisition was a thinly veiled attempt at converting non-believers while taking away their money and properties. Many could not convert because of their religion. The crusades were to reclaim the holy land. For who? The one's trying to reclaim the land weren't even from that land. All of these crimes were committed by men claiming to represent their church or religion, when in fact they were distorting or even ignoring their own beliefs. Jesus had a simple message love thy brother. Forgive those that are truly repentant. Follow his example of good and love. We do get on each others nerves once in a while, but this doesn't give us the right to judge each other. We all will answer to the ultimate judge in the end. I choose to believe that there is something afterlife and I also believe that it is easier to be good to each other than to be evil. At least it feels better to do this. I don't feel good hurting people or making them mad, I would much rather try to help and foster good feelings than ill wishes.
Yes Avengador, that was a good post. Along those lines, I read this this morning: (A Marine is speaking) "It's God's job to judge Bin Ladin" "It's our job to arrange that meeting"
IP: Logged
04:40 PM
FieroKyle Member
Posts: 1141 From: lowell, michigan, USA Registered: Jun 2001
Originally posted by Cheever3000: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mach10: [b]Given all the rest that is in the Bible, why doesn't it protect itself (and it's followers) from this sort of thing?
God doesn't need to "protect" His own Word.
Whoever believes it will believe it. The Bible depiction of a rich guy in Hell asking for someone to go back & tell his brothers so they will be saved, was told they still wouldn't believe even from someone who was brought back from the dead.
And regarding all the stuff "Christians" have done to others makes me think real Christians should use the more accurate label of "Christ-like". It's kind of hard to hide whether your actions are Christ-like or not.
[/B][/QUOTE]
WELL SOMEBODY NEEDS TO PROTECT US NOW FROM EVIL DONE BY BELIVERS AND THOSE WHO REVISE GODS WORD TO FIT THEIR BELIFES LIKE SAUL/PAUL DID TO EARLY JEWISH-CHRISTIANS.
WHAT CHAPTER AND VERCE IS THAT FROM ABOUT RICHMAN IN HELL?????
WHO IS CHRIST LIKE TODAY NOT ANY PREACHER I HAVE SEEN ON TV THATS FOR SURE!!!!!! OR ANYWHERE ELSE !!!! WHAT CULT IS TRUE ONE?????? ETHOIPTIAN-COPTIC???? CATHAR ???? GNOSTIC ?? ROMAN CATHLOIC?? GREEKS ??? SYRIAN ???? OR JUST YOURS ??
If you look bad through the old testiment, Adam and Eve only had one commandment, and they broke it.
Noah had a few, I thing Abraham had a few more. When Moses went up on the mountain he came down with 10, but the Hebrews were already rebelling, so he went back up
and after he came back down the second time, he had not only the ten commandments, but half the book of Dueterominy - literally hundreds of 'commandments' and rules the jewish people had to follow to the T in order to be holy.
Thats the point - whether God gives us one law, one commandment, or a hundred - it doesnt matter - we WILL break them.
People dont need the rules to be spelled out for us - we know in our hearts whats right and wrong, man has always known, all the way back to Adam.
BTW i saw something on the news I thought ws funny - some group is protesting against the Catholic Church, because they have a policy against using condoms. They say this policy is killing people because of aids and VD... and therefor the church should come out and say its OK to use condoms.
The funny part is the twisted logic - the church ALSO has a policy against extramarital SEX! Do they really think people will break the churches rules governing sex, and then be worried if they use a condom too, cause thats against church policy?!?!
If they are not breaking the NO SEX rules, they dont need condoms - if they are breaking the more important NO SEX rule, then what do they care if they are breakig the no comdom rule too.
Its totally insane that anyone would accuse the catholic church of causeing the spread of AIDs, by banning condoms amounsgt their followers.
I will stick my already scarred up neck out here & say that I think the Catholic Church's original objection to condoms was related to the contraception aspect. Admitedly, what I know of the Catholic Church is very little, so please be gentle in your reply. I'm old, don't heal well, carry a grudge, harbor resentment, have a fragile ego, prone to fits of depression,,,,,,. you get the idea.
Mach, you have some excellent replies to your question, and yet you question it further. (it was an excellent question to begin with)
When He says "Do not kill" He shouldn't have to say "I mean ever...don't kill anyone, it's My job to give and take Life, and Mine alone."
When He says "Do not steal" He shouldn't have to say "Do you hear Me? I mean do NOT steal...ever. Don't take anything that isn't yours."
Simple answers are often the best thought out, and generally represent the crux of the issue. (Especially when breathed by the Word of God) The Constitution would have been better off using the 10 commandments alone, and never adding or taking away. Install judges who are open to direction and leading of the Spirit, and you have a country full of Solomons. What could be better? You add 100s of laws a year, and people don't know within the realms of common sense whether they're totally legal or not.
Example; you live in the US. A young common crow (Corvus brachirhynchus) flies into your window and is slightly injured. You know a bit about caring for young birds, and reasonably believe you can rehabilitate it.
Here's the law. 1) You can legally KILL the bird, since it's considered a "nussiance" species, but... 2) You ca NOT KEEP the bird, since they are migratory, and are "protected" under the Migratory species acts. Even if you're rehabilitating it for release.
...Tell me someone was thinking there?!
True story, BTW...The bird was confiscated and could have been rehabilitated (but only by a licensed rehabber), but was destroyed instead.
The 10 "golden rules" are the easiest, simplest, most "true" was to judge your actions. You temper those rules with the example of Christ, and the leading of His Spirit, and you can NOT go wrong.
Righteousness is always legal.
IP: Logged
09:21 PM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
Luke 16: 19-31 has the story about the beggar Lazarus and the unnamed rich man.
v. 31 says "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead".
The "hearing not Moses and the prophets" reference is to what was the written Bible at that time (the new testament books hadn't been written yet).
Also, ray b, I am sorry you have not met people that were good, accurate representations of Christians. That was, and still is, my experience as well. I refuse to let them distort my view of Christ, though.
11 pages about Harry Potter, wow. Must be alot of fans... <slight cynical smerk>
------------------ '88 coupe, 5 speed; Have you seen my website yet? Http://www.LithiumEffects/pheageysfeiro "The car formaly know as, and has now reverted back to being known as, Pheagey's Fiero."
IP: Logged
11:36 PM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
When He says "Do not kill" He shouldn't have to say "I mean ever...don't kill anyone, it's My job to give and take Life, and Mine alone."
When He says "Do not steal" He shouldn't have to say "Do you hear Me? I mean do NOT steal...ever. Don't take anything that isn't yours.
Righteousness is always legal.
THEN WHY DO THE BIBLE BELT STATE"S KILL THE MOST PEOPLE????BIBLE BELIVING BUSH BRO"S AT TOP OF MOST KILLS LIST????? when roman empire became christian at 350 ACE the new converts would not KILL TO DEFEND THE STATE,so the state FELL, and churchie's blamed the immoral life of romans but not themselfs for fall.
ALLWAY WRONG TO STEAL??? NO IT'S NOT WOULD YOU STEAL BEN LAUDEN'S A-BOMB FROM HIM?? I SURE WOULD!!!! A GUN FROM A LITTLE KID???? CARKEYS FROM A DRUNKDRIVER???
Originally posted by ray b: ALLWAY WRONG TO STEAL??? NO IT'S NOT WOULD YOU STEAL BEN LAUDEN'S A-BOMB FROM HIM?? I SURE WOULD!!!! A GUN FROM A LITTLE KID???? CARKEYS FROM A DRUNKDRIVER???
Maybe you're not certain about the defintion of "steal". the definfition pertaining to theft is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." Now lets define "right". (again, the meaning pertaining to the previous definition) "Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality"
So in all three instances, you aren't stealing anything.
IP: Logged
01:01 AM
Joe Torma Member
Posts: 3485 From: Hillsborough, NJ USA Registered: Jul 2001
I was working tonight...if we've forgotten-I am a manager at a movie theatre...and someone found part of the Bible. The first few pages of Genesis!
Ok, so I'm not an avid church goer, and I've forgotten most of what was taught about the bible...but in reading these found pages, forgive me, it doesn't really make any sense.
My coworker was reading it and she was just baffled at it. Then she told me to look at it and I pretty much agreed.
I dunno. Subject to interpretation I suppose...beliefs in what it is getting at.
Originally posted by ray b: THEN WHY DO THE BIBLE BELT STATE"S KILL THE MOST PEOPLE????BIBLE BELIVING BUSH BRO"S AT TOP OF MOST KILLS LIST????? when roman empire became christian at 350 ACE the new converts would not KILL TO DEFEND THE STATE,so the state FELL, and churchie's blamed the immoral life of romans but not themselfs for fall.
ALLWAY WRONG TO STEAL??? NO IT'S NOT WOULD YOU STEAL BEN LAUDEN'S A-BOMB FROM HIM?? I SURE WOULD!!!! A GUN FROM A LITTLE KID???? CARKEYS FROM A DRUNKDRIVER???
Ray, don't take this wrong, but you're the single most ignorant and paranoid person I have ever met. ~ Really!
"Bible belt states kill the most people"... How about next time you talk out your anus you give some reference or backup? What the hell are you talking about now?! ...And how does it make Christians or the Bible responsible?!
Well, in this case, I believe Ray is referring to the high murder rate in Texas and the # of people executed by Texas Prison systems. GW was Texas Governor for a lot of that period. Fla, where Ray lives, is crime free, ya know. San Angelo has a school tax roll of 56,000 people and about 50 churches here. And hey, we did have A murder last year. And maybe another this year. OMG, it's crime running rampant!! I'll have to check & see if either one of the victims was beaten to death with a Bible. Seriously tho, I'm not as much in favor of the death penalty as I was in years past. Especially in cases where the convicted person is under 18. I'm actually pretty torn on this issue. (Is this thread going to take another turn now?) It is strange that most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, yet favor .Never mind. won't go there. Bin Ladens nuke: Most likely acquired it illegally-not his to begin with, so taking it from him is not stealing. Child with a gun-same as above. Drunk's car keys-You're going to return them when he sobers up-no one would call that stealing.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-02-2001).]
IP: Logged
10:15 AM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
Originally posted by maryjane: I believe Ray is referring to the high murder rate in Texas and the # of people executed by Texas Prison systems.
Oh! I was scratching my head over Ray's post too! The death penalty has nothing to do with Christianity but rather dispensing of social justice. I know a lady who forgave her sister's killer (took her a year to get to that point), but society can't forgive him. We still believe he should be locked up. The execution part can make this topic go on for years, but Ray needs to know it's not anything to be angry at Christians for. And if you insist on doing so, then fine, you won't make me change my mind on the capital punishment. They're not executing near enough criminals IMO.
"Bible belt states kill the most people"... How about next time you talk out your anus you give some reference or backup? What the hell are you talking about now?! ...And how does it make Christians or the Bible responsible?! good day.
W Bush ran up a 135 kills score in texas second place was bro jeb bush here in Fla. Both claim to be saved Christians with God in their hearts but kill their fellow men. Most of the Killer States are in the Bible belt and same states allso have more of their people in prisons than Liberal states out of Bible belt. SOURCE scientific american 12-01 issue. Christians talk about forgiving, but DON'T Christians talk about not judging others BUT do and do so very harshly. I an sorry that you are so BRAIN WASHED you can't think or learn about the real actions that your CO-religionest are up to right now and the same as they did in the past.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 12-02-2001).]
IP: Logged
01:25 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by TRiAD: Ray, don't take this wrong, but you're the single most ignorant and paranoid person I have ever met. ~ Really!
"Bible belt states kill the most people"... How about next time you talk out your anus you give some reference or backup? What the hell are you talking about now?! ...And how does it make Christians or the Bible responsible?!
"I" did NOT take this thread here Chuck, Ray did. & "I" have no intention of trying to convince you or anyone else of the proper way to handle capital punishment or religion. If I had the answer to that, I would likely have the Nobel Prize for Peace. I have stated many times that that is a personal decision, for each individual to decide for themselves, and leave others to the same. An interesting link, though, to tell us where NOT to live in order to avoid a nuclear strike.(among other tidbits)(guess I was wrong about Fla being crime free). http://www.joelskousen.com/Strategic/body_strategic.html For some strange reason, Houston is conspicuously missing. I KNOW they have a pretty high crime rate. Maybe the list is out of date.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-02-2001).]
IP: Logged
01:37 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by maryjane: Well, in this case, I believe Ray is referring to the high murder rate in Texas and the # of people executed by Texas Prison systems. GW was Texas Governor for a lot of that period. Fla, where Ray lives, is crime free, ya know. San Angelo has a school tax roll of 56,000 people and about 50 churches here. And hey, we did have A murder last year. And maybe another this year. OMG, it's crime running rampant!! I'll have to check & see if either one of the victims was beaten to death with a Bible. Seriously tho, I'm not as much in favor of the death penalty as I was in years past. Especially in cases where the convicted person is under 18. I'm actually pretty torn on this issue. (Is this thread going to take another turn now?) It is strange that most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, yet favor .Never mind. won't go there. Bin Ladens nuke: Most likely acquired it illegally-not his to begin with, so taking it from him is not stealing. Child with a gun-same as above. Drunk's car keys-You're going to return them when he sobers up-no one would call that stealing.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 12-02-2001).]
Won't go where? Hmm.... Killing... Legal... Could it be that "A" word?
If we're going THERE, we *REALLY* have to be careful.
But it's not about whether it's right or wrong, it's about having the RIGHT to go down that path if you so choose. My GF is pro-choice (as am I), but by her own admission, she'd probably rather die than go through with it. It's the same as the topless law. Yes, Women ARE allowed to run around topless. Does it mean that they will? No... Just means that they aren't being bound.
Originally posted by Pontiaddict: Maybe you're not certain about the defintion of "steal". the definfition pertaining to theft is "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." Now lets define "right". (again, the meaning pertaining to the previous definition) "Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality"
So in all three instances, you aren't stealing anything.
LETS SAY that ben lauden built his bomb with U-23X he mined HIMSELF and TOTALY has ownership of it under common law??
little kids dad gave him the gun to protect him and thinks he should allways be armed, just in case, so if you give it back to dad, dad will return it to kid. WHAT DO YOU DO NOW???
DRUNK will drive as soon as he gets keys back and will be drunk next day too. I would steal his car too.
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd
IP: Logged
01:44 PM
JSocha Member
Posts: 3522 From: Felton, MN, USA Registered: Apr 2001
The way I see it everyone, not that it really matters to anyone, is nine more posts after mine and we can all start a new page as well as a new chapter within this continuing saga.
EDIT: Ray beat me by one post
[This message has been edited by JSocha (edited 12-02-2001).]
IP: Logged
01:48 PM
DRH Member
Posts: 2683 From: Onalaska, WI, USA Registered: Dec 1999
But it's not about whether it's right or wrong, it's about having the RIGHT to go down that path if you so choose.
Actually it's all about whether it's right or wrong. The whole argument boils down to at what point it becomes the taking of a human life. If everybody agreed on that, I think 99% would also agree on what the law should be.
IP: Logged
02:07 PM
PFF
System Bot
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by DRH: Actually it's [b]all about whether it's right or wrong. The whole argument boils down to at what point it becomes the taking of a human life. If everybody agreed on that, I think 99% would also agree on what the law should be.
[/B]
No, that's what pro-lifers argue. The pro-choicers that *I* know have the opinion that Yeah, its WRONG... But it's still *OUR* bodies, and we can do whatever the hell we want with them... Why do WE have to put up with an unwanted parasite just because it has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human being.
It's either that, or some SERIOUS drinking/crack-smoking, followed by a clotheshanger in a back-alley.
Ray, if bin lade builds a bomb out of mined u-23X, it will be useless. Him mining and processing the ore into something useful is a stretch by any imagination, but guess it could happen. The nuke proliferation act would make him a criminal(like he cares), plus it is doubtful the original ore would be his. No nation allows mineral rights for most radioactive elements to be in possession of individuals. Again, not his to begin with, so taking it is not stealing. The kid with the gun that his father gave him: You're stretching it a ways here. Again, all things are possible, but this is not too plausible. You'd steal the drunk's car? Try it, then you are victim of what you are complaining about. ie YOU are now the thief. Even courts that order the removal of a vehicle from a person with consecutive dui convictions usually only pull the tags. Don't know about other states, but in Texas, when you buy car tags, the tag remains the property of the state, even though you pay for it. You're just purchasing the registration for the right to drive during that time period. You're grasping at straws here, on all three accounts. But I do see what you are talking about. Perhaps a better analogy is 'right to eminent domain'. The government or even a corporation can take your property if it is deemed in the best interest of the 'people'. They are supposed to pay you fair market value, but don't take into consideration the intangibles. I personally consider the taxing of my paycheck stealing, especially when compounded with sales tax. They tax me to earn it, then tax me again when I spend it. And tax me yet again when the interest accrues to a certain amt, as income again. Ya can't win.
Mach10: A lot of pro-choicers I've run into usually don't consider it any different than using contraceptives or even having a benign tumor removed. Usual explaination is: It's not the right time for me/ I can't afford one right now/ it will disrupt my life/career too much. The only problem I have personally is the male half of the equation. It takes two to tango, so to speak, and he is responsible for at least half of the cost of child-raising, & medical costs. If a woman decides to continue on with the birth, he is immediately at least half responsible. If not, he has no say. Many times, not even consulted until after the fact. I also have problems with a person that will say "it's not a life , We're not having it because it's my body". Yet when they are ready for a family, will say, as soon as they know ," Oh, it's so wonderful to have this life inside me". Seems like a double standard.In reality, I suppose it is a heart-wrenching decision for anyone to make. wheww!
IP: Logged
03:34 PM
Mach10 Member
Posts: 7375 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
Originally posted by maryjane: Mach10: A lot of pro-choicers I've run into usually don't consider it any different than using contraceptives or even having a benign tumor removed. Usual explaination is: It's not the right time for me/ I can't afford one right now/ it will disrupt my life/career too much. The only problem I have personally is the male half of the equation. It takes two to tango, so to speak, and he is responsible for at least half of the cost of child-raising, & medical costs. If a woman decides to continue on with the birth, he is immediately at least half responsible. If not, he has no say. Many times, not even consulted until after the fact. I also have problems with a person that will say "it's not a life , We're not having it because it's my body". Yet when they are ready for a family, will say, as soon as they know ," Oh, it's so wonderful to have this life inside me". Seems like a double standard.In reality, I suppose it is a heart-wrenching decision for anyone to make. wheww!
Well, considering a few of the pro-choicers that I know... Er, well... They are the kind of skin-head ladies that you DO NOT want to disagree with
My personal feelings? Well, there's 2 things. 1) The wellbeing of the mother. ABOVE ALL ELSE. If having the child (for whatever reason, although some better than others) is going to negatively disrupt the mother's life in a serious way wether physically or psychologically, then SHE has the choice. It's arrogant for ANY of us who haven't been in their shoes to judge one way or another. 2) Wellbeing of the child. Again, there are some situations that fit better than others. BUT, if the situation is such that one or both parents are totally inequipped to have the child** then there may not be another choice.
** READ: **** happens. No matter how careful some people are, accidents happen. Well they shouldn't have been fooling around? Who are you to judge that? Personally, I NEVER do anything that I'm not fully prepared to face the consequences for. But that's just me.
Now, as far as the child is concerned, my humble opinion is that if it has no chance of surviving outside of the womb on it's own, (with standard premature incubation equipment) then it's a person in potentia only.
Earlier on (1st trimester) it's a ball of gelatinous cellular material... Hardly a human being.
I *AM* opposed to late abortions. After the 2nd trimester, it's fully formed, and 75% functional. that's just WRONG. But in the early months...
Let's keep it friendly
IP: Logged
03:48 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Christian's believe in an eye for an eye, justice in other words or even vengeance. Not all Christian's belive in not applying the death penalty. There are criminals out there who definitly deserve the death penalty and will never repent. I would personally send these individuals on their way to hell. As for the so called bible belt, I've been there and it's mostly Baptist' that I have seen there, not Christian's, and I believe that they don't condone the death penalty either. That is their right. Criminals are judged by their fellow man here on Earth, but they still must face a greater court on the other side. Most of these criminals would steal, kill, rape, or sell drugs to our kid's given half a chance when they get paroled. They don't get rehabilitated in prison and to them this is the only life they will know till they die or are murdered themselves.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-02-2001).]
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 12-02-2001).]
No, that's what pro-lifers argue. The pro-choicers that *I* know have the opinion that Yeah, its WRONG... But it's still *OUR* bodies, and we can do whatever the hell we want with them... Why do WE have to put up with an unwanted parasite just because it has the POTENTIAL of becoming a human being.
How is this any different than what I said???It's still just a question of whether or not it is taking a human life. The pro-lifers believe it is starting from conception. The pro-choicers believe it's later. I don't know of any pro-choicers that say "yea, it's murder but it's OK".