News & Current Events
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-06T11:42:35-04:00 — #1
Continuing the discussion from She Used to think Gun Control was the Answer:
I proposed this question:
I am interested in this response.
Do you value human life more as it gets older?
If not then how does mankind justify support of "Murder through Abortion" yet want to prevent "Murder by Gun-Violence"
Reference to Vegas, which was heinous: In my opinion at least the victims had a choice to attend the concert. The babies were never given a choice at all.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-06T13:32:25-04:00 — #2
This is a great question. Human life is human life, PERIOD. It doesn't matter if they are in the womb, or a 90 year old on their death bed. It is sacred and God has a plan for however long or short that life is and we are not to take it.
That is the great double standard of the left. They want gun control even though the guns do not do the killing, the people do, but want to make abortion even easier to access than it already is.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-11T11:30:23-04:00 — #3
It would seem as though if Life were valuable, then there could be no differentiation between adult or child, in the womb or on their deathbed. Yet this seems to not be the view. Extremely old, and fetus are disposable, in between is valuable to an extent. I'm curious for others thoughts.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-11T11:54:10-04:00 — #4
Me as well. @bill_coley what is your view on the matter? Would also love to hear from Alex on this one.
bill_coley — 2017-10-11T14:28:57-04:00 — #5
I think most of us value life differently as we age, or as circumstances change.
Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders, for example, reflect personal conclusions that life is not worth living if it can be sustained only with the help of machines.
When in the absence of DNRs families decide to withdraw life supporting technology from their loved ones' bodies, they make the same basic decision: Life on a machine is not as valuable as life off of a machine. (By the way, as both pastor and family member I've been involved in decisions such as those, decisions I both understood and supported.)
That several of our states implement capital punishment is in my view another example of valuing life differently depending on circumstances. Everyone deserves to live, so seems to be the claim, EXCEPT those we find guilty of committing crimes that we believe deserve death. So MOST lives are equally valuable - or in David's words...
... EXCEPT, say some states, when we value a convict's life as deserving death.
Which leads to the most challenging aspect of the value-of-life question: the inconsistency with which people passionate about capital punishment and abortion on all sides of those issues invariably charge each other: If you believe in the sanctity of life, pro life person/anti-capital punishment person, how can you support the death penalty/abortion?! (This current thread arose out of a related variation on the theme: Opposition to the gun violence that kills 33,000 people per year.)
I have long considered that inconsistency to be a profound challenge to my point of view, so I have thought about it a lot over the years. The reality is that I value all life, but I don't value all life equally.
- I value the life of the mother more than I value the life of the fetus/unborn child. (So do laws which and people who advocate the ban of abortions except when the life of the mother is threatened.) For me, that different valuation is based in my understanding of personhood - that the mother is relationally connected to both her family and community, while the unborn fetus/child is not. Such connection, in my view, grants to the mother's life both an identity and more value than the unborn's. It's NOT that the unborn's life has no value!! It's that the mother's life has more value. On that bases, I support mothers' rights to terminate pregnancies as regulated by the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision.
- I value the life of the convicted murderer more than I value the life of the fetus/unborn child for the same reason.
- I value the lives of the 58 who were assassinated by the Las Vegas shooter more than I value the lives of 58 unborn fetuses/children for the same reason. Hence, I have greater passion about controlling gun violence than I do about outlawing abortion (I agree with the view of many political progressives, that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.)
As for the assertion that guns don't kill people, I offer a couple of responses:
- Had there magically been no guns in the world last week, how many of the 58 Las Vegas shooting victims would be dead today? Is it your view that the shooter would have found some other way(s) to kill and injure those 500 people that night? Or instead was it the guns' unique capacity for harm that fueled his decision to execute his attack? I think without the guns, those people would still be alive, so, in my view, the guns played a prominent role in those folks' deaths. The shooter pulled the trigger, but existing laws permitted him to acquire those triggers to pull.
- My other response to the idea that guns don't kill people focuses on the example of opioids, the pain-management drugs whose abuse and addiction concerns are quickly growing. The opioids themselves don't addict people. People have to swallow them again and again for addiction to arise. So why stiffen opioid regulation as we have done or are about to do? Because we have decided that though opioids don't addict people, they pose enough threat to merit additional legal control. Guns don't pull their own triggers, but they still pose enough of a threat to merit additional legal control.
Now that I have explained the intersection, and possible conflict, between my passion for gun violence and what you call abortion "violence," Tyrone, I hope you will explain yours. If you believe all life is valuable, then for you, the 33,000 who died last year by guns must be an atrocity. What does your passion for life lead you to want to do about a genre of weaponry that, as currently regulated, still contributes to the deaths of so many human beings?
p.s. At some level I understand your use of the word "violence" to describe abortions, but I think its use drastically and unjustifiably simplifies and, more importantly, emotionalizes, what is a safe and legal medical procedure. Hence, I don't use the word myself.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-11T14:35:19-04:00 — #6
How, do you value the life attached to one soul more then another?
How do you value the life of the Guy who raped your sister, and raped her 6 month old child before brutally murdering them more then the life of the child who has yet a chance to live?
bill_coley — 2017-10-11T15:01:38-04:00 — #7
I answered your questions directly in my post, Tyrone (emphasis added)....
Given that in the another thread you asserted I had "dodged" questions, I'm surprised that in your response to my post in this thread, you chose not to respond to any of the questions I posed in my previous post. I hope you will address them, at least the one found near the end of the post:
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-11T15:05:23-04:00 — #8
Not exactly the same thing....
Amazingly that is God's view too, but I forgot you only take parts of the Bible that jive with your worldview.
The death penalty and abortion are not the same thing. One is innocent life, the other is not.
So then why do you support the right for her to kill the baby just because she decided she did not want to be pregnant? What if there is no indication that her life is in danger?
This is very telling, you don't value babies.
Yes, he would have found some other way, example, driving a vehicle through the crowd.
First, that's not the same thing. There is no Constitutional right to opioids. Second, both are regulated, and both can also be obtained illegally. Hmmm...Guess those restrictions don't work.
Scientific research shows otherwise.
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-11T15:11:24-04:00 — #9
I can't control gun violence on a mass scale but I don't believe in violence of any kind. I believe, change in people's hearts, not rules would make a difference so I preach the Gospel to change one life at a time. That's my part
You answered "what" you believe, I asked "how" you arrived at this belief where you value the life of the Guy who raped your sister, and raped her 6 month old child before brutally murdering them more then the life of the child who has yet a chance to live?
bill_coley — 2017-10-11T15:57:20-04:00 — #10
Not exactly a helpful response, David. Your long-standing preference for and practice of one- and two sentence replies to issues both complex and otherwise often results in posts, such as the one I just quoted, whose meaning and derivation are difficult to discern.
The OP's question was "Do you value life more as it gets older?" In response, I said that "I think most of us value life differently as we age, or as circumstances change." In my view, DNRs reflect changed valuation of life under different life circumstances. I don't know whether that's "exactly the same thing" as whatever you had in mind with your five word reply, but for me it's close enough to be useful, so I used it.
I'm thinking you meant to refer to parts of the Bible that "jibe" with my worldview. Am I correct?
Our differences when it comes to biblical interpretation are well documented in these forums. But in this current thread, however, you have already made clear your interpretation of the Bible's message about taking life...
Those words of yours seem pretty definitive to me, David. Where in your words do you find ANY room for taking ANY life for ANY reason? Are you saying the life of a convicted murderer is not "human life PERIOD"? and is not "sacred" life which we are "not to take"? Where in your words that I quoted do you find any room for such conclusions?
Re-visit my post, David, and you will find that I used the mother's life in danger exception only as an example of valuing the mother's life more than the unborn's life. I did NOT use it as an expression of the totality of own view on abortion.
If there is no indication that the mother's life is in danger, and if the mother's choice to terminate the pregnancy is within the Roe v. Wade guidelines, then I support her right to have an abortion.
Revisit my previous post, David, and you will find that I didn't say I "don't value babies." I said...
and then I said... (emphasis added)
I think it HIGHLY, HIGHLY, HIGHLY unlikely that he could have killed 58 and injured nearly 500 driving a vehicle through the crowd, if for no other reason than that access to the grounds of the concert venue would have been quite difficult to obtain without encountering serious security and infrastructure resistance.
Whether there's a constitutional right to opioids is irrelevant to the use I made of them in my post.
So because in your view they "don't work," do you recommend that we loosen or lose current opioid restrictions? Or do you believe that even if restrictions don't stop everyone from addiction, we must keep them in place on principle, and because we need a way to intervene in people's addicted lives in order to get them help (the same reason we make suicide illegal)?
Once again, your penchant for brief replies leaves me uncertain as to the meaning of your post. Could you tell me what your four word reply refers to? What is it that "scientific research shows otherwise"? Could you provide a link to some of that research?
bill_coley — 2017-10-11T16:08:25-04:00 — #11
I might not have made my question clear, Tyrone. I wasn't asking about your personal actions to combat gun violence. I was asking about what your passion against violence leads you to believe should be done...
That is, since you're passionate about violence of all kinds, what do you think we should do as a society about weapons that contribute to so much of that violence?
Again, I responded to your question directly in my previous posts (emphasis added):
The "how" of my differing valuations is the way I understand that the concept of "personhood" applies differently in the two instances.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-11T16:09:24-04:00 — #12
Notice I said it is up to God. God said those who murdered are to be put to death. Therefore that fits perfectly within my statement. No contradiction.
But why?? Why does that life then get nullified just because someone else thinks it is inconvenient? That's monsterous.
Oh no, you didn't say it explicitly, but you made very clear that unborn babies do not matter to you.
Sure the venue might have been different, but surely you know these types of attacks already occure. Or do you deny that?
No it's not, it is completely relevant to show that you aren't comparing apples to apples.
Scientific Studies Show Unborn Babies Can Feel Pain as Early as 8 Weeks
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-11T22:54:06-04:00 — #13
I'll have a better response. Let me think on some things.
And lemme think on solutions for a bit as well.
bill_coley — 2017-10-12T00:02:27-04:00 — #14
So in your view and according to your posts, "human life is human life PERIOD," is "sacred" no "matter if they are in the womb, or a 90 year old on their death bed," and is something "we are not to take," UNLESS they are convicted, by human courts, of capital offenses?
I don't have numbers in front of me, but I can't imagine that inconvenience fuels most women's choice for abortion. There are many other dynamics at play.
Bottom line: I respect the authenticity of your view on this matter, David. But I think it's monstrous for society to murder its own through capital punishment, and I assure you my view on that matter is as authentic as your view on the abortion question. Part of the tension extent in this debate is that each side feels what they deem to be legitimate outrage for the other's core view. I don't know how to bridge that divide, except by mutual respect.
Last year's attack in Nice, France, killed 86 and injured more than 450; so yes, such attacks occur. But the Nice attack was on a street, not in a concert venue. My question was specific to the Las Vegas concert in that particular venue. No way could the shooter have driven a vehicle into that crowd to kill and injure as many as he did with his arsenal.
When you revisit my initial reference to opioids, you'll discover that I referred to them solely as another example of something that doesn't, itself, cause problems - humans have to consume them to get hooked on them - but still we regulate them, and may soon regulate them more, given their power to harm.
Guns don't themselves kill people - humans have to pull the triggers - but it's the guns that do the damage, just as the opioids do the damage. Likewise, we regulate guns even though they they don't pull their own triggers, just as we regulate opioids even though they don't force their way into people's bodies.
You provided a link to research about fetus' experience of pain. I never raised the issue of fetal pain. In fact, when you posted that "scientific research shows otherwise," I thought that research would speak to the subject I had addressed: the use of the word "violence" to describe abortions.
I thought the research you referenced had to do with the extent to which use of the word "violence" to describe abortions simplifies or emotionalizes a safe, legal procedure. Instead, it has to do with fetal pain. Since that's not the subject I raised, I'm not going to comment on the link you provided.
j_remington_bowling1 — 2017-10-12T00:06:48-04:00 — #15
There is no need to see people as having a single value or as only valuing something in one way. Put another way, we can distinguish between different types of value and things having one or more of these kinds of value. For example, we could try distinguish between instrumental value, subjective value, and inherent value.
It makes sense to say that every human being has the same inherent value, given that every human being is made in the image of God. But clearly not everyone has the same instrumental value or subjective value. These values will differ for different people in different circumstances and, for a single person, can change over a period of time.
P.S. Not only is there no inconsistency in being pro-life & pro-capital punishment, but that there is no inconsistency is obvious. At best this charge comes up as a bare assertion. But I've never seen anyone draw out the inconsistency logically. If anyone would like to start a new thread where they start with the premise "It is wrong to kill innocent human beings in the womb" and then adds the premise "It is permissible to kill human beings guilty of some acts of evil" and derive a contradiction I would love to see it!
bill_coley — 2017-10-12T00:29:04-04:00 — #16
Welcome to the forums!
In your challenge, you add words that usually aren't included in the debate. You pair the assertion that "it is wrong to kill innocent human beings in the womb," with the assertion that "it is permissible to kill human beings guilty of some acts of evil."
From that pairing and those inserted words, it seems to me that the more accurate way for you to have begun the P.S. of your post was to say "Not only is there no inconsistency in being pro-innocent life and pro capital punishment for people guilty of acts of evil, but that there is no inconsistency is obvious." I'm used to hearing people say "I'm pro life." I rarely hear people claim to be "pro-innocent life." Is that how you describe yourself, "pro-innocent life"?
In your view, how many acts of evil and of what magnitude can a person commit before his or hers is no longer an "innocent" life? Is it simply the capital offense laws of the society that determine the difference between "innocent" and non-innocent life, whether society's killing of a person is justified? Or is innocent life ONLY life that's still in the womb?
j_remington_bowling1 — 2017-10-12T00:47:44-04:00 — #17
Thanks for the welcome. With all due respect, if you think that my focus on the unborn as "innocent human beings" is unusual then it could only be through your own unfamiliarity with pro-life apologetics. I just now did a very quick search in my Logos library for the phrase "innocent human being/life" and two out of the three pro-life resources I have in my library immediately returned results where that is precisely how they frame the issue.
In regards to framing the pro-capital punishment position as being one where some people guilty of acts of evil deserving death... again, I'm a bit confused as to why you think this is unusual. Surely you didn't think that the pro-capital punishment position was something other than the position that persons guilty of evil (or crime, if you like) deserve death. Which part are you surprised that pro-capital punishment people hold to?
You seem to focus on the phrase "pro-life" and abstract it from its specific usage in the abortion debate. This makes no sense. It would be akin to me acting surprised to find that an American liberal isn't open to my suggestion that they give me all their income, because I thought they were liberal which in its most basic and abstract sense means to be open to new ideas. Well why are they calling themselves "liberal" if they aren't open to the new idea I just gave them? Seems inconsistent! Well, that confusion is my own fault, because I can't really understand what an American liberal is just by looking at the word from its most basic, abstracted meaning.
P.S. Sorry I forgot to answer your last paragraph where you want to know exactly when a person deserves capital punishment. My answer: that's irrelevant to the point that the following two beliefs are logically consistent: (1) We should not kill innocent human beings. (2) Some non-innocent human beings deserve capital punishment. In my initial post, I claimed that these two beliefs are logically consistent and I challenged anyone to take these two beliefs as premises and try to derive a logical contradiction. The details of when someone meets the criterion for (2) are completely irrelevant to that
bill_coley — 2017-10-12T01:41:36-04:00 — #18
Perhaps I didn't make my question clear. I'm not surprised that a pro-capital punishment position would deem "some people guilty of acts of evil" as deserving death. I'm asking about the nature of the acts of evil people must commit to be deemed deserving of death, and most particularly who decides which acts of evil deserve death?
I assume - perhaps incorrectly - that for you and others in the pro-innocent life community, decisions as to who lives and who dies belong to God, not humanity. So the question of which acts deserve death and which don't is an important one. Is it simply the judicial decisions of human juries in capital offense cases, or are there other authorities to whom you entrust such life and death outcomes?
But in this thread and the thread which spawned it, "pro-life" has not been limited to the issue of abortion.
- I believe my protest of the role of guns in American violence is a "pro-life" position.
- Many of us who oppose capital punishment consider ours to be a "pro-life" position.
- Many advocates for social and economic justice do so, in part, because for them it is a "pro-life" position.
Perhaps in your use of the term, "pro life" refers only to abortion; but in my use of the term, it does not. In fact, as you're likely aware, one of the frustrations "pro choice" people often express is that the community who raise such vocal support for life before birth seem to oppose public support for life after birth if that support comes in the form of assistance for such things as early childhood education, day care for working parents, or public assistance for families facing economic hardship.
I don't see the relevance of this analogy, perhaps because being "open to new ideas" doesn't necessarily mean endorsing every new idea that comes along, anymore than being conservative means rejecting every new idea that comes along. But I might not understand the analogy simply because you and I use the term "pro-life" differently, as I proposed above.
As I noted above, because of what I assume to be the pro-innocent life community's convictions about God's decisive role in who lives and who dies, I don't agree that the dividing line here is "irrelevant." In my view, your claim that "some non-innocent human beings deserve capital punishment" begs the questions, what is a "non-innocent" human being? and who/what decides which non-innocent human beings deserve capital punishment?
tyrone_howard — 2017-10-12T10:43:16-04:00 — #19
@Bill_Coley @J_Remington_Bowling1 @Gao_Lu @David_Taylor_Jr @BKMitchell
After some self searching this is what I realised, I believe the word of God, I'll have to pray more that I'm able to follow it when faced with real life choices. Consider these things:
1st I contend that if we all live by the same faith the same scripture the same Jesus a view would be united on something God Specifically outlines.
2nd I conceded that the truth is we do not all hold the same value to the words placed in the text of Gods Word.
Some view they are God's Absolute words/directives(myself) and admit we fall short of them often, but they are his words, his standard and we have to continually work to meet them, not ask him to lower his standards to meet ours
some view scripture is explained only by Man, in Councils creeds etc (Dave) (cp Council Creeds) resulting in an ability to bend, translate form scripture to support our views instead of changing our views to support scripture
some view Scripture are metaphorical, allegorical, or descriptions of faith based events/stories in content(Bill) but who believe God Never changed, man did, and we described God differently to fit our changes (i.e God never believed in genocide but since we left the garden and brought in evil, God allowed Evil to destroy evil to display his glory).
In truth 2 of those views, I admire, one I think is ungodly. That is not the point here. My point here is this, KNowing this here are my stances.
- Capitol Punishment=Wrong.
- Mass Killing by Citizen = Wrong.
- Abortion = Wrong.
- Government killing through war = Wrong.
- Self Defense resulting in Murder = Wrong.
If you take another humans life, even in defense of your own - that is still "eye for an Eye" which Jesus perfected, with "Turn the other Cheek".Now I'm not there yet, and admit this, and would be sorrowful and in much repentance if forced to make this decision. I could not however pretend I was not wrong just because it was self-defense.
If I killed a child, of my wifes, who was raped, while still in the womb. I would be wrong. I cannot say I wouldn't do it, I would have to do much repentance if placed in this situation because I don't know how I would react, although I'm tempted to say I'd consider abortion even though I don't believe in it, but I'm human. I could not however pretend I was not wrong, just because the baby was formed by rape.
If someone murdered and raped my mother, I cannot say I would not want them to face capitol punishment. I would have to do much repentance if placed in this situation because I don't know that I would be strong enough to not want to see them die, and might have to ask God to help me with forgiveness even after the execution, although I don't believe in capitol punishment, but I'm human. I could not however pretend, I would not be wrong, just because he did a heinous act I deemed worthy of Death.
By now I think you get my point. We can have a strong position on the issue, which should be founded in the Word of God. Which is quite simply, do not Murder. Yet can be honest with ourselves that unless put in that position we aren't sure how we would react, so we can choose to not be so quick to mandate others to act in a way, that we believe is right, having never faced the actual situation. Or we can choose to say, regardless, the system should be setup to uphold the Word of god so that if in that situation, faced with a choice where we might make the wrong one, the system forces us to make the right one i.e Outlaw Abortion, Capitol Punishment, remove all forms of violent weapons, Universalism as a solution to the worlds problems. Yet the truth is, although Jesus Christ gave us a book of Law, he does not force us in every decision, he guides us, he reproves us, he forgives us and as we grow we become stronger in the faith to trust him during difficult times that we would make the choice which seems foolish to man, but is righteous in his eyes.
So in Summary, I am Pro-Life, Anti-Capitol Punishment - I don't support warring, and I know to turn the other cheek.
I pray to Jesus that he makes me strong enough to do his will when faced with any of those situations because right now, I'm subject to hit you back, willing to support a premeptive strike against N.Korea, would considering aborting a baby placed in my wife via Rape, and would push for that convict to receive the death penalty who murdered my sister.
- Does that make me wicked, maybe in your eyes. I'm ok with that.
- In my eyes -it makes me human. I'm ok with that also.
- In Jesus eyes maybe forgivable, redeemable. I'm in love with him for this.
I pray he sees my heart desires him yet I struggle with the concept of how to make the right decision in those circumstances even if I know what the right decision is.
In Regards to Laws, Policies, regulations I'm torn:
I don't know that I could support policies, that would not allow others the same growth opportunity in Christ Jesus. I look at the children who grew up in holiness that I've met from the Church I attend. They all rebelled because they were forced, most of the young women wear pants, drink, the guys smoke and fornicate. While myself because I did all that first, I now follow holiness closely because I've fallen in love with Jesus. Its important we let God be Judge, Jury and we deliver the Gospel of Jesus Christ frogiveness and restoration, and power through the Holy Ghost to those who may face a situation or who have faced a situation, that they might not be under condemnation and instead may go forward in power and might to make a Godlike decision next time.
david_taylor_jr — 2017-10-12T10:43:42-04:00 — #20
behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. (Emphasis added)
You can ignore the article but it proves that the baby can feel pain very early so while an abortion may not intend to cause the baby pain it is intended to kill it and that fits the very definition of violence.
next page →