| Author |
 Topic  |
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2012 : 07:52:31 AM
|
Since Liberals want a duty-to-retreat law on self-defense, instead of the stand-your-ground law, I have one question.
Why won't they also support a duty-to-retreat law for abortion?
Afterall, a baby is innocent and isn't threatening anyone.
In other words, why won't they support a ban on abortion except in cases where abortion is the last resort to save the mother's life?
(I give credit to Skinneej on this one for making a good point about it recently.)
Possible answers are,
1. because their moral principles are phony, shallow, and subject to change based on what they want to do at any given time,
2. because they value the life of a violent criminal with a weapon more than that of a defenseless baby,
3. because they do not believe in the concept of personal responsibility and wish to transfer responsibility to innocent parties,
4. because they (or their gals) might want to have an abortion sometime,
5. because they (or their gals) had an abortion, so they have to believe it's OK in order to settle the cognitive dissonance within them,
7. because they want to have sex without responsibility,
8. because no one can see the baby,
9. because they don't really value human life but just want to support Liberal politics,
10. because they are bullies or potential criminals who want to be able to beat people up, harass, or rob them with minimal chance of their targets fighting back.
Those are just some possible answers. I'll let them speak for themselves if they have the fortitude.
Ye Liberals out there, go right ahead, and explain how you can use morals appeals like, "To me, taking a life should be the last resort" as a basis for repealing stand-your-ground law for self-defense, but do a complete 180-degree turn on abortion law, throwing that would-be moral principle in the trash along with 2 million dead American babies annually.
You call for a ban on stand-your-ground law on self-defense matters, and want a re-passage of duty-to-retreat law because of a mere HALF DOZEN DEBATABLE incidents over SEVERAL YEARS in the whole nation, but you won't call for the same on abortion while 2 MILLION innocent babies are chopped up like hamburger meat EVERY YEAR???????
You want to prosecute self-defenders as manslaughterers or murderers for stopping an attacker, but woman who grind up their children for nothing but personal convenience are AOK????? There should not be any law to even slow them down????
How does that morality work? It's almost as hypocritical as Al Gore flying around in his Gulfstream Jet, and buring 20 times the electricity of the average American at just ONE of his multiple mansions, while he criticizes the rest of us for not riding bikes to work.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/02/2012 08:00:43 AM |
|
|
Easy
Senior Member
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 08:40:14 AM
|
| I told you Lee! They will go into the arguement about ( What constitutes Life?) Only arguement or rational they will be able to come up with! Oh, they might try to say the conception was a mistake and they didn't mean to conceive, so they get a do-over. Kind of like , No Harm, No Foul. Or, the Doctor did it, not me. Put the responsibility, on someone else! |
 |
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 08:42:03 AM
|
As a STAUNCH supporter of Castle Doctrine, I'll add a couple possible answers (note that headings are mine and spur of the moment, so they may need refinement):
11. LIBERTARIAN/SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENT: Because no person can be compelled to provide their body to save the life of another person. For example, a family can KNOW they have a good chance of producing a child with a deadly condition, the treatment of which could come from the parent. But that parent cannot be compelled to give a kidney, liver, etc., to save the life of the child after it is born.
12. UTILE ARGUMENT: For early term abortion, the blastocyst is not a thinking being, nor has it established an active relationship with society. While a human, it is no more of a baby or person than a sperm or egg, YET. To characterize a blastocyst as a baby or person is logically inconsistent with the definitions of either. Punishing people for MURDER cannot help the murdered person in any way. It helps or "pays back" those who have lost the murder victim. Society does not have a relationship with a blastocyst. Killing a blastocyst does not shatter its dreams or ambitions, as it hasn't any.
13. BIBLICAL MORALITY: The Bible establishes that fetuses are lesser beings than people. In Exodus, murder is punishable by death, but the killing of a child in the womb is a civil offense with lesser punishment (Exodus 21:22).
My actual position is indeed one of what might look like cognitive dissonance. I believe abortions certainly kill human beings, but I also believe they should be legal. And I don't know anyone more firm on stand-your-ground rights (except maybe GC).
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 09:17:21 AM
|
| Was the baby profiled and eating skittles and tea? That seems to make a difference with liberals. |
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 09:19:36 AM
|
| The problem with liberals is that they aren't driven by logic. They are driven by emotion. If something doesn't "feel right" on the surface, then it must not "be" right. Liberals have a very hard time understanding cause and effect and looking at the larger picture. They can't live without big government micromanagement. |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 10:23:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimIslander
As a STAUNCH supporter of Castle Doctrine, I'll add a couple possible answers (note that headings are mine and spur of the moment, so they may need refinement):
11. LIBERTARIAN/SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENT: Because no person can be compelled to provide their body to save the life of another person. For example, a family can KNOW they have a good chance of producing a child with a deadly condition, the treatment of which could come from the parent. But that parent cannot be compelled to give a kidney, liver, etc., to save the life of the child after it is born.
12. UTILE ARGUMENT: For early term abortion, the blastocyst is not a thinking being, nor has it established an active relationship with society. While a human, it is no more of a baby or person than a sperm or egg, YET. To characterize a blastocyst as a baby or person is logically inconsistent with the definitions of either. Punishing people for MURDER cannot help the murdered person in any way. It helps or "pays back" those who have lost the murder victim. Society does not have a relationship with a blastocyst. Killing a blastocyst does not shatter its dreams or ambitions, as it hasn't any.
13. BIBLICAL MORALITY: The Bible establishes that fetuses are lesser beings than people. In Exodus, murder is punishable by death, but the killing of a child in the womb is a civil offense with lesser punishment (Exodus 21:22).
My actual position is indeed one of what might look like cognitive dissonance. I believe abortions certainly kill human beings, but I also believe they should be legal. And I don't know anyone more firm on stand-your-ground rights (except maybe GC).
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120
I said LIBERALS--not THINKERS!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/02/2012 11:10:14 AM |
|
|
|
hhi angler
Senior Member
2137 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 10:31:26 AM
|
| Emotion can be way more powerful then logic. Just look at the slime bag on trial in Greensboro. Look at the emotional grand standing yesterday in the Afghan outhouse. |
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 10:56:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by skinneej
The problem with liberals is that they aren't driven by logic. They are driven by emotion. If something doesn't "feel right" on the surface, then it must not "be" right. Liberals have a very hard time understanding cause and effect and looking at the larger picture. They can't live without big government micromanagement.
Skinneee,
That is a common perception by we conservatives (well, I'm relatively conservative). I would say it is a misconception for many of those liberals who actually fight for specific causes (key word here is many, not all). Many liberal positions are driven by deep thought of pros and cons. They just differ on what they consider a pro! Liberals drove many human rights issues, like women's suffrage, gay rights, abolition of slavery, etc.
Of course it always depends on the issue. One could convincingly argue that liberals want to outlaw firearms out of fear and as a way to enhance or maintain their power, so any use of firearms is an anathema to them. Conservatives with guns are more powerful than liberals with control of the court systems when the issue is important enough; so conservatives with guns are a threat to their ideals and way of life. And although driven by emotions (fear of loss of power, fear of injury or death), they use logic to decide how to alleviate that fear.
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:09:20 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimIslander
As a STAUNCH supporter of Castle Doctrine, I'll add a couple possible answers (note that headings are mine and spur of the moment, so they may need refinement):
11. LIBERTARIAN/SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENT: Because no person can be compelled to provide their body to save the life of another person. For example, a family can KNOW they have a good chance of producing a child with a deadly condition, the treatment of which could come from the parent. But that parent cannot be compelled to give a kidney, liver, etc., to save the life of the child after it is born.
12. UTILE ARGUMENT: For early term abortion, the blastocyst is not a thinking being, nor has it established an active relationship with society. While a human, it is no more of a baby or person than a sperm or egg, YET. To characterize a blastocyst as a baby or person is logically inconsistent with the definitions of either. Punishing people for MURDER cannot help the murdered person in any way. It helps or "pays back" those who have lost the murder victim. Society does not have a relationship with a blastocyst. Killing a blastocyst does not shatter its dreams or ambitions, as it hasn't any.
13. BIBLICAL MORALITY: The Bible establishes that fetuses are lesser beings than people. In Exodus, murder is punishable by death, but the killing of a child in the womb is a civil offense with lesser punishment (Exodus 21:22).
My actual position is indeed one of what might look like cognitive dissonance. I believe abortions certainly kill human beings, but I also believe they should be legal. And I don't know anyone more firm on stand-your-ground rights (except maybe GC).
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120
OK, I'm going to address this in more detail.
Before I counter your points, I want to say that you and your answers don't apply here because you don't fit the question as one who wants the duty-to-retreat law for self-defenders. The question was all about the double-standard of the pro-Choicers who oppose SYG law--a double-standard that you don't have here, but they do. I still disagree with you on abortion, but you're not subject to the questions I asked because you're not applying a double-standard about a "last resort" law.
OK, now, I'll counter your argument.
"11. LIBERTARIAN/SANCTITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL ARGUMENT: Because no person can be compelled to provide their body to save the life of another person."
That can be applied to self-defense, too. No one should have to risk his personal safety (body) to try and save the life of an attacker.
"12. UTILE ARGUMENT: For early term abortion, the blastocyst is not a thinking being, nor has it established an active relationship with society."
Many (or most) abortions are carried out far past the blastocyst phase of development. The girls I've known who had them did so when the baby had all physical features and a heartbeat. Take a look at the pictures of the aborted fetuses that were taken from the trashcan behind an abortion clinic. They are posted online. They are disgusting. So, the "it's just a blastocyst" arguement doesn't hold water, as abortion is not legally confined to that phase. I used that same argument to justify abortion in my own mind when I was in college, but since then, I've actually learned something about what really happens in millions of abortions every year, and it ain't just about a ball of cells.
"13. BIBLICAL MORALITY: The Bible establishes that fetuses are lesser beings than people. In Exodus, murder is punishable by death, but the killing of a child in the womb is a civil offense with lesser punishment (Exodus 21:22)."
That is not a completely accurate reading of the verse; in fact, it glosses over quite a bit. "The Bible establishes that fetuses are lesser beings than people" is an inaccurate interpretation, and I will explain why. You must read the whole passage.
First, the same passage also prescribes a lesser punishment for someone who kills someone unintentionally (NO punishment, actually), or who kills his own slave. Those are with regard to "people", not fetuses. Second, the verse about the fetus does not address intentional abortion, but only the unintentional miscarriage cased by two men in a fight who accidentally hit a woman. Third, the punishment is not necessarily lesser for the killing of a fetus. Actually, the verse states that the the punishment is whatever the "woman's husband will lay upon" the person who caused the miscarriage. Finally, if you're going to call if "Biblical", then you must interpret it in light of the rest of the Bible. Mosaic Law also said that people could get divorced, Jesus said God was just being merciful in allowing that, but that it was actually adultery to divorce. Legal permission under Moses is not necessarily spiritual approval.
Below is what the passage actually says.
"12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die , shall be surely put to death . 13 And if a man lie not in wait , but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee . 14 But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die . 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death . 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death . 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death . 18 And if men strive together, and one smiteanother with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:19 If he rise again , and walkabroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit : only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughlyhealed . 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surelypunished .21Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished : for he is his money.22 If men strive , and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surelypunished , according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt givelife for life,24Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,25Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
(There's more, but I had to stop somewhere.)
OK, now, even if we accept that a lesser punishment is given for fetuses, rather than deeming it "murder" (and I'm not completely ruling that out), how about a lessor punishment for abortion, then? I mean, as long as we're arguing on Biblical grounds, it is appropriate to argue for Biblical punishment. See if you can get a Liberal to agree to ANY penalty for abortion. Doubtful, so the point is moot. At best, on this point, you might be able to argue for a lesser punishment for voluntary aborters, but that would still be more than the classic "pro-Choicer" is going to accept. In general the "pro-Choice" movement doesn't even want there to be a provision requiring the consent of the FATHER or husband, and in some cases, not even the parents of a teenager considering abortion. So, the Biblical angle is blown.
"My actual position is indeed one of what might look like cognitive dissonance. I believe abortions certainly kill human beings, but I also believe they should be legal. And I don't know anyone more firm on stand-your-ground rights (except maybe GC)."
Your position is consistent. You are not one of those who hypocritically switches from arguing that "taking a life should be the last resort" in defense of duty-to-retreat law, to a "pro-Choice" position on abortion. I mean, you're morally wrong about abortion, but at least you're not a flip-flopper.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/02/2012 11:21:15 AM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:24:48 AM
|
I'm going to post this question again, since it hasn't been answered.
"Since Liberals want a duty-to-retreat law on self-defense, instead of the stand-your-ground law, I have one question.
Why won't they also support a duty-to-retreat law for abortion?"
For all--including the Conservative JimIslander--I'm looking for answers about why the people who oppose SYG law and demand duty-to-retreat law won't apply the SAME moral reasoning with regard to abortion. If "taking a life should be the last resrot" when it comes to self-defense, why is it not the last resort with babies? (If anyone tries the blastocyst argument, I may deem it apropos to post pictures of all the ripped-apart hands, heads, feet, and bodies of fully-formed babies, from legal abortions in order to make the point that it's not just about blastocysts, so please don't make that a necessity.)
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/02/2012 11:27:22 AM |
|
|
|
soup
Senior Member
2720 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 11:58:58 AM
|
Mr. Islander--it's important to distinguish between a "classical liberal"--one who believes in individual liberty, free associations between people for their own benefit, small localized governments,etc. and today's "liberals"--those who believe in the superior intellect and morality of big government. I think these people should be called "progressives". Most libertarians and true conservatives would, at one time, have been called "liberals".
Gotcha--"liberals" would say that you are presenting a false comparison. Probably because they do not believe in the true sanctity of life. To them, fetuses from conception to birth(even after birth for some "liberals") are the property of the female. That's why they frame the issue in terms of "women's health issues". Thus, there would be no need for "last resort".
I'm taking a shot in the dark at this in an effort to see if I can think as a "liberal".
Isn't there scripture which says something like "God knowing the number of hairs on your head even before conception"? |
|
|
|
saltydog235
Senior Member
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:09:03 PM
|
Left wing radical liberals don't think, they react with knee jerk, populist, take the easy way out, blame everyone else so called solutions to issues without consideration of long term effects. Liberals like to pass the buck in short.
Mark
Mako 262 Twin Yammaha F200s
Yeah, but do you consider a dog to be a filthy animal? I wouldn't go so far as to call a dog filthy but they're definitely dirty. But, a dog's got personality. Personality goes a long way.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid" John Wayne
|
|
|
|
skinneej
Prolific Poster
11907 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:09:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by soup
Mr. Islander--it's important to distinguish between a "classical liberal"--one who believes in individual liberty, free associations between people for their own benefit, small localized governments,etc. and today's "liberals"--those who believe in the superior intellect and morality of big government. I think these people should be called "progressives". Most libertarians and true conservatives would, at one time, have been called "liberals".
+10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 12:51:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by soup
Mr. Islander--it's important to distinguish between a "classical liberal"--one who believes in individual liberty, free associations between people for their own benefit, small localized governments,etc. and today's "liberals"--those who believe in the superior intellect and morality of big government. I think these people should be called "progressives". Most libertarians and true conservatives would, at one time, have been called "liberals".
Gotcha--"liberals" would say that you are presenting a false comparison. Probably because they do not believe in the true sanctity of life. To them, fetuses from conception to birth(even after birth for some "liberals") are the property of the female. That's why they frame the issue in terms of "women's health issues". Thus, there would be no need for "last resort".
I'm taking a shot in the dark at this in an effort to see if I can think as a "liberal".
Isn't there scripture which says something like "God knowing the number of hairs on your head even before conception"?
"Gotcha--"liberals" would say that you are presenting a false comparison. Probably because they do not believe in the true sanctity of life. To them, fetuses from conception to birth(even after birth for some "liberals") are the property of the female. That's why they frame the issue in terms of "women's health issues". Thus, there would be no need for "last resort"."
I know. I just want to hear them answer for this so their false moral appeals will reveal themselves some more.
"Isn't there scripture which says something like "God knowing the number of hairs on your head even before conception"?"
There are actually a few like that, and I forgot to add them to my already-lenghty reply to JimIslander.
Jeremiah 1:5 is probably the most famous with, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
In Genesis 25:23 KJV, we read, "And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb..."
I think the "hairs of your head" part is actually from a saying of Jesus, which reads, "But the very hairsof yourhead are all numbered." -- Matthew 10:30 KJV
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/02/2012 12:53:43 PM |
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 3:15:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
I mean, as long as we're arguing on Biblical grounds, it is appropriate to argue for Biblical punishment. See if you can get a Liberal to agree to ANY penalty for abortion. Doubtful, so the point is moot. At best, on this point, you might be able to argue for a lesser punishment for voluntary aborters, but that would still be more than the classic "pro-Choicer" is going to accept. In general the "pro-Choice" movement doesn't even want there to be a provision requiring the consent of the FATHER or husband, and in some cases, not even the parents of a teenager considering abortion. So, the Biblical angle is blown.
As expected, Lee, you make some great arguments. But of course I am not one to actually desire the use of biblical quotes to run our society. We see clearly that according to the bible, slaves are of less value than other "people". But this is getting off topic. I leave further comments to liberals who are pro-choice and anti-gun/Castle-Doctrine.
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 3:53:21 PM
|
"We see clearly that according to the bible, slaves are of less value than other "people"."
Not really. I mean, it could possibly be read that way, but that's not necessarily "clear" because the Biblical law required a release of slaves every 7th year, and the lesser punishment for the death of a slave also applied to accidental death on a non-slave (i.e., "other people"). When it comes to all three verses--pertaining to the miscarriage, the killing of a slave, and the killing of a man in a fight where the killer did not "lie in wait"--there appears to be an assumption of a lesser CRIME, rather than (or in addition to) a lessor person. In the case with the miscarriage, it's talking about two men fighting and bumping into a pregnant woman--an accident. In the case of a slave, it's talking about a master beating a slave and it resulting in the slave's death. Slaves were of great value to a farmer (which Israelites were), so it's assumed that one wouldn't purposefully throw away such an asset. So may be meant as an example of accidental killing, too, or just a lesser crime than waiting for someone to murder them on purpose. Finally, the one about the man who "did not lie in wait" refers to a man who did not intend to kill his opponent. He was not looking for a battle, but it found him. He killed a regular person--not a slave, and not a fetus--but he still goes free, without punishment.
So, while you see the variant degrees of punishment as an indication of variable value placed on different people, I think it's at least as clear, if not more likely, that the degrees of punishment are actually an indication of the relative degree of severity with which different kinds of CRIMES were viewed. In other words, the punishment didn't necessarily fit the value of the victim, as you suggest. Rather, it may have been that the punishment fit the crime, as common sense would request to this day.
By this, we have come full circle.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/02/2012 4:04:09 PM |
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 7:19:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
"We see clearly that according to the bible, slaves are of less value than other "people"."
Not really. I mean, it could possibly be read that way, but that's not necessarily "clear" because the Biblical law required a release of slaves every 7th year, and the lesser punishment for the death of a slave also applied to accidental death on a non-slave (i.e., "other people"). When it comes to all three verses--pertaining to the miscarriage, the killing of a slave, and the killing of a man in a fight where the killer did not "lie in wait"--there appears to be an assumption of a lesser CRIME, rather than (or in addition to) a lessor person. In the case with the miscarriage, it's talking about two men fighting and bumping into a pregnant woman--an accident. In the case of a slave, it's talking about a master beating a slave and it resulting in the slave's death. Slaves were of great value to a farmer (which Israelites were), so it's assumed that one wouldn't purposefully throw away such an asset. So may be meant as an example of accidental killing, too, or just a lesser crime than waiting for someone to murder them on purpose. Finally, the one about the man who "did not lie in wait" refers to a man who did not intend to kill his opponent. He was not looking for a battle, but it found him. He killed a regular person--not a slave, and not a fetus--but he still goes free, without punishment.
So, while you see the variant degrees of punishment as an indication of variable value placed on different people, I think it's at least as clear, if not more likely, that the degrees of punishment are actually an indication of the relative degree of severity with which different kinds of CRIMES were viewed. In other words, the punishment didn't necessarily fit the value of the victim, as you suggest. Rather, it may have been that the punishment fit the crime, as common sense would request to this day.
By this, we have come full circle.
Your post really reinforces my position on using the bible as a source for public policy. Somehow slavery of a Hebrew male for six years is morally okay? No. Thinking people know that slavery is immoral. And somehow, as brilliant as I know you to be, you have left out "Girls, women and foreign slaves and their offspring" which became the perpetual property of the owner's family. Father's are told, by the words of this book, that it is perfectly okay to sell their daughters (very specifically girls under 12 years of age) as sex slaves to any other Hebrew male. VERY clearly, the God of the old testament not only condones slavery in many forms (many of which are reprehensible), but he gives detailed directions for exactly how this is to be accomplished.
I'm rather surprised at your insistence that God does not consider some people more valuable than others. Besides what I mentioned above regarding Hebrew vs. non-Hebrew slaves being permanent property, Exodus is very clear in showing the value of a mans life (or the severity of a crime) depends on the value of the person who was harmed. For example, if a man strikes another man, and he dies (but he really did not mean to kill him), God specifies the following:
If the dead man was not a slave, the killer is banished from the tribe. He must FLEE.
If the dead man was a slave, "...if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
And, not surprisingly, if a child in the whom is killed, the punishment is between that of a slave and a free Hebrew man.
What determines the severity of the crime here? The action is the same in all three cases, accidental death of a human being. If we apply, as you said, common sense, it tells us the CRIME is more severe because the VALUE of the human being varies.
If you actually believe what you wrote, that "the degrees of punishment are actually an indication of the relative degree of severity with which different kinds of CRIMES were viewed", clearly God himself viewed accidentally killing a slave as a lesser crime than accidentally killing an Israelite (man). He viewed non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property, while Hebrew slaves had to be freed after six years of service. Regarding non-Israelites, "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
Edited by - JimIslander on 05/02/2012 7:23:38 PM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2012 : 7:42:11 PM
|
You are off base in much of what you just wrong and are making some important logical mistakes in both your argument and your reading of the passage, but I'll have to point out how tomorrow because I'm busy with something right now. Until then, have a good evening--and no need to get snippy with me, man (e.g., "if you actually believe what you wrote..."). 
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 08:18:01 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
You are off base in much of what you just wrong and are making some important logical mistakes in both your argument and your reading of the passage, but I'll have to point out how tomorrow because I'm busy with something right now. Until then, have a good evening--and no need to get snippy with me, man (e.g., "if you actually believe what you wrote...").
EDITED: Because I wrote my reply the first time in the middle of the night.
No snippiness intended, Lee. It always sounds harsher in print.
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
Edited by - JimIslander on 05/03/2012 08:19:20 AM |
|
|
|
Half-hitched
Senior Member
949 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 08:27:40 AM
|
| Why does abortion have to be a political topic? Why can't a woman, or a couple make a decision to terminate if they so choose? Who does it bother? I certainly wouldn't give a rats ass if someone aborted an unwanted fetus. |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 09:29:09 AM
|
OK, JimIsland, I'm back to point out your missteps, one by one.
1. "Your post really reinforces my position on using the bible as a source for public policy."
YOU--not I--brought the Bible up here. I'm only addressing it here because you took us there. Therefore, "using the Bible as a source for public policy" was YOUR contribution here, because YOU invoked it first, and I only addressed you on the ground that YOU set. I addressed your other, non-biblical points also.
2. "Somehow slavery of a Hebrew male for six years is morally okay?"
First, the Scripture doesn't say that it's morally OK. It just says that it's legal--you know, kind of like how you say that abortion isn't necessarily morally OK, but that it should be legal.
More importantly, though, slavery was not necessarily what you think it was, JI, and it may have actually have been moral--very moral--at least in many cases. For example, do you know that the only ways a Hebrew could have become a slave in Israel were by either (a) the man selling himself into slavery, or (b) being made a slave by the court because he committed a CRIME and couldn't pay his victim? Well, that's the case. Honestly, I think it was a good idea for a man to become a slave if he was a guilty theif who couldn't pay for the things he stole when he got caught. He'd be serving and paying for his crime instead of society paying to feed, house, and cloth him while he lifts weights and gets an early release from jail for "good behavior". When it came to women, you probably aren't thinking of the practicality of the situation. Yes, fathers did sell their daughters to master/husbands when no man otherwise asked for her as a wife, and even in that case, the transfer wasn't all that much different, but that's because women--and their children--generally could not survive without a male provider and protector. An unmarried woman, if not sold as a wife, or if she LEFT her husband or master, would have to live with her father, and when he got old, she was out of luck. This is also why women craved to have sons--so they could care for their mothers when they grew up. Men were not necessarily more highly valued by God, but by WOMEN and society at large, because it was not the cushy place that the United States of America is today.
By the way, did you read the part where the master has to give the leaving slave a bunch of provisions, gifts, and rewards as he leaves?
3. "Thinking people know that slavery is immoral."
Ah, isn't that the same as me saying, "Thinking people know that abortion is immoral"? In other words, who gets to determine what's moral? You? Me? George Washington (definitely a "thinking person".) Our culture? Moses' culture? Egypt's culture? The modern culture? The ancient culture?
4. "And somehow, as brilliant as I know you to be, you have left out "Girls, women and foreign slaves and their offspring" which became the perpetual property of the owner's family."
You keep oversimplifying the passage. It sctually, it says "If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married , then his wife shall go out with him. 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself."
When he leaves, he takes his own wife and kids with him. If his master gave him a woman with which to bear children, the woman stays with the master, and obviously the children would stay with their mother in the ancient world. People in the ancient world--especially in agrarian societies--sometimes multiple concubine-wifes for the purpose of bearing more kids to help on the farm. Sarah wanted a son so badly that she got Hagar to bear one for Abraham.
As for foreigners, you are correct. God did make a distinction between Hebrews and Gentiles. That has never been ink question and is common knowledge among Christians.
5. "Father's are told, by the words of this book, that it is perfectly okay to sell their daughters (very specifically girls under 12 years of age) as sex slaves to any other Hebrew male."
False. First, nothing is in any way established as "perfectly OK". Practical LAW is given for how to deal with a pre-existing culture. Second, there is no mention of "sex slaves". The woman in question became the WIFE of her master, and was treated like a wife, and there is NO MENTION of "12 years of age". You don't understand what you're reading, and you're injecting things NOT in the Bible ANYWHERE.
Read this: "Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore ; lest the land fall to whoredom , and the land become full of wickedness." (Lev 19:29). As with any contract, you must read the whole thing in the context of the entire document to understand the "overriding character"--not just one passage, but the whole thing (at the very least, the whole Torah, but Rabbis argue that you have to read Mishnah, also, and Christians argue that you need to read the whole Bible to understand any of it). I know you've probably read the whole Bible before, but you aren't reading each passage in light of the other here. The verse you are talking about in Exodus 21 is talking about a woman, sold as a slave, who becomes a WIFE to her master (and there is NO mention of "12 years of age"). The whole passage is there to PROTECT the WOMAN from the ways of the EXISTING ANCIENT WORLD'S PRACTICES. Read the WHOLE THING. It says, "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. 8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed : to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money."
By the way, this also applied to NON-Hebrews, according to the passage. See, man. You are so bent on making an argument that you're expressly distorting Scripture now.
6. "VERY clearly, the God of the old testament not only condones slavery in many forms (many of which are reprehensible), but he gives detailed directions for exactly how this is to be accomplished."
Providing laws and limits for something that existed in the culture does not necessarily mean that He approved of slavery. It may just mean that He was placing practical limits on the world as it existed, such as with divorce. You are confusing civil law with spiritual law. Here, let me explain (again). I believe that Jesus knows the Mind of God better than you or I, and Jesus clarified the intent of the Law when asked. On one occasion, the Pharisees asked Him what He thought of divorce. He said that it is adultery. In response, they made the same mistake you are making. They cited the Mosaic Law where God told Moses to make a provision for divorce as evidence that God approved of it. Jesus replied, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." In other words, God provided an orderly process for divorce as a matter of national law because he knew it was going to happen either way. That doesn't mean he approved of it. Perhaps, you think you know the intent of Scripture better than Jesus did, but even some non-Christian rabbis say the same thing about slavery. It wasn't something that God necessarily liked to see, but as long as it was there, He gave provisions to regulate it so it wouldn't go too far into the inhumane.
Aside from that is the fact that their slavery was not necessarily the same evil that our most recent version of slavery was. Again, the only ways prescribed in the Bible for how someone could become a slave in the fist place was by being sold as a pentalty for a crime or by one selling himself or his daughter into slavery--presumable for his or her OWN GOOD. You know, they didn't have Bank of America or McDonald's on the corner, or the city police to protect them from raiders. Each and every soul had to struggle for subsistence. Slavery in those days was not necessarily an evil thing for every slave. In some cases, the slaves WANTED to stay with their masters.
You are trying to JUDGE a culture that existed almost 4,000 years ago, along with GOD! If you can single-handedly do that, then I can single-handedly say that abortion is evil. 
7. "I'm rather surprised at your insistence that God does not consider some people more valuable than others."
I'm not insisting that, actually. Read more carefully. I simply said that the laws you cited about the penalties for crimes do not necessarily indicate a variable value of the people involved, but may actually indicate a variable value places on the crimes and the intent with which the crimes were carried out.
8. "Besides what I mentioned above regarding Hebrew vs. non-Hebrew slaves being permanent property, Exodus is very clear in showing the value of a mans life (or the severity of a crime) depends on the value of the person who was harmed. For example, if a man strikes another man, and he dies (but he really did not mean to kill him), God specifies the following:
If the dead man was not a slave, the killer is banished from the tribe. He must FLEE."
False. That was not a punishment at all. The man was to flee to a "city of refuge" to prevent a showdown with an angry avenger from the family of the man who was slain. It was to SAVE the life of the unintended killed and prevent further bloodshed by an enraged relative with a sword in his hand. The Law said that the man had to stay in the city of refuge for a time, not forever; thus, he was NOT "banished". He was merely to remain there until enough time had passed to clear the air so there wouldn't be a feud. If he came back while the avenger was still on the warpath, his blood was on his own head. This was an act of crace, not punishment. This was an ancient way of dealing with DISPUTES and keeping the peace among insanely angry people.
8. "If the dead man was a slave, "...if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money."
Again, you are missing the REST of the passage. If the slave dies immediately, the man is punished, and if not, then he is not. Why would it matter if the slave died immediately or not? Think about it. It's most likely because the immediacy of the death would be an indication to the judges of the intent of the master and the level of hostility with which the slave was beaten. In other words, it indicated the nature of the crime and the intent. A master would not presumably intentionally kill the man who brings in his crops, lest he suffer financial loss himself, but if while beating a slave for some infraction of the slave, he inadvertently kill the slave, then the Law provided a very basic kind of analysis for how to gauge the recourse by the judges. "For the slave is his money" could be read to mean, "he punished himself (financially)".
Still, though, if a man beat a free man, the law would be different, and I do agree with you on that. However, I do not know how any "thinking" person could think that makes abortion OK.
9. "And, not surprisingly, if a child in the whom is killed, the punishment is between that of a slave and a free Hebrew man."
False. You are ignoring facts. The punishment for the accidental killing of the child in the womb is quite possibly GREATER than that of the man who accidentally killed a man in a fight. The passage about the child in the womb is a clear case of accidental injury to a woman in the context of a fight between two men, and the punishment is up to the husband. The case where two men fight, and one kills the other, although he did not "lie in wait", is a case of self-defense, and the defendant only has to flee to escape the avenger (for his own protection and to prevent a family feud in the street). Nowhere does Scripture stipulate that the punishment for the miscarriage is "between that of a slave and a free Hebrew man".
10. "What determines the severity of the crime here? The action is the same in all three cases, accidental death of a human being."
That's what I was saying--that they were all presumed either accidental, out of unwillful negligence, or in self-defense, and that's why they were not the same as the punishment for intentional murder. Did you miss that?
11. "If we apply, as you said, common sense, it tells us the CRIME is more severe because the VALUE of the human being varies."
No. Although three crimes, while not exactly intention, are still of different nature and circumstance. Why are you completely ignoring this fact? Also, why are you misreading what I have written? I didn't speak with the absolute authoritative certainty that you are presumtuously employing here. I used words like, "at least as likely". That may be because I respect the fact that you and I are pretty silly to think we are beyond error in anaylizing the reasons and practicalities behind a 4,000-year-old legal system with absolute certainty. I just wish that you were open to that possibility, too, instead of being so certain that you have the universe all figured out, all by yourself, and are in a place to judge your Creator.
12. "If you actually believe what you wrote,"
Excuse me? Have I ever been disingenuous with you?
13. "That "the degrees of punishment are actually an indication of the relative degree of severity with which different kinds of CRIMES were viewed", clearly God himself viewed accidentally killing a slave as a lesser crime than accidentally killing an Israelite (man)."
No, that's actually not clear at all. With the accidental killing of a salve, the master is punished, or, if the slave dies later, indicating even less intent, the master jsut suffers his own punishment by having lost his investment--and I am assuming that slaves were not cheap. In the case of the free man who is killed by someone "not lying in wait", but accidentally or in self-defense, the defendant is not punished at all. He just has to flee for his own sake and to prevent a feud.
14. "He viewed non-Hebrew slaves as permanent property, while Hebrew slaves had to be freed after six years of service. Regarding non-Israelites, "You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
This is the part where God definitely DID, without a doubt, make a distinction between an Israelite and a Gentile. However, God clearly explains why He makes such distinction in other places in the Scripture. It's because (1) He made a Covenant with Abraham to lift his descendants because of his faith and faithful actions (righteousness), and (2) the Gentiles were heathens who worshipped other gods and practiced acts detestible to God. Another part you might miss is that if a Gentile took on the ways of God, he could become an Israelite. God is talking about heathens--pagans--and yes, He did allow the Israelites to treat them with less respect than a fellow Israelite. He also allowed Israelites to charge the heathen interest on loans, but did not allow them to charge interest on a fellow Israelite.
One thing you are apparently missing on this particular point is that God actually gave the non-Israelite slaves a higher form of treatment than their own people did. For example, if a non-Israelite slave fled from his master to an Israelite, the Israelite was not permitted to release the slave to his master.
Think about it. The Law is complex and has many confusing provisions that are only confusing because we don't fully understand its culture. Take the example of the prohibition on boiling a baby goat in its mother's milk, for example. For millenia, rabbis have thought that it was about animal rights. Then, only in recent times, an ancient Canaanite stele was found that solved the mystery. It enlightens us to an ancient Canaanite practice of boiling baby goats in the mothers' milk and sprinking the boiled milk over the field to beget a divine blessing on the crop. God was telling Israel to being the first fruits of the crop to Him for a blessing rather than to practice the Canaanite vanity. Much of the Law is about things we do not see or know. Some of it is simply practical application for keeping peace, and some is to make distinction between Israel and heathen culture, and some is still a mystery.
OK, NOW, BACK TO THE QUESTION!!
How can a person LOGICALLY and HONESTLY advocate duty-to-retreat LAW for self-defense on the grounds that "taking a life should be the last resort" but not call for the same kind of law with regard to abortion?
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
Edited by - gotchacovered on 05/03/2012 10:05:40 AM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 09:30:23 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimIslander
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
You are off base in much of what you just wrong and are making some important logical mistakes in both your argument and your reading of the passage, but I'll have to point out how tomorrow because I'm busy with something right now. Until then, have a good evening--and no need to get snippy with me, man (e.g., "if you actually believe what you wrote...").
EDITED: Because I wrote my reply the first time in the middle of the night.
No snippiness intended, Lee. It always sounds harsher in print.
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120
No problem. Just wanted to make sure you weren't getting hot on me or something.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 09:32:51 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Half-hitched
Why does abortion have to be a political topic? Why can't a woman, or a couple make a decision to terminate if they so choose? Who does it bother? I certainly wouldn't give a rats ass if someone aborted an unwanted fetus.
Because Liberals say that "taking a life should be the last resort" when it comes to laws governing self-defense. This mention of abortion is, therefore, not a political argument. It's a point to show that the Liberals are beg phony with their moral appeals.
Whether JI agrees with my conclusion on that or not, I think he'll agree that the double-standard my point here, rather than mere politics.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
blue_earth
Intermediate Member
120 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 09:38:49 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Half-hitched
Why does abortion have to be a political topic? Why can't a woman, or a couple make a decision to terminate if they so choose? Who does it bother? I certainly wouldn't give a rats ass if someone aborted an unwanted fetus.
Because some jaysus freaks want to control...you know, women. They didn't get them memo that not all americans believe in the same grim fairy tales that they believe in. They're slowly figgering it out though c'ause the times are a changin...for the better.
In a nutshell: Conservative men hate women and conservative women hate themselves.
|
|
|
|
JimIslander
Senior Member
1804 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 09:42:24 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by blue_earth
In a nutshell: Conservative men hate women and conservative women hate themselves.
Most ridiculous post in this thread.
Hate is not the motivating factor here; it is a devotion to a belief. I don't agree with that particular belief either, but it's empirically not HATE that motivates the decisions here.
Of course we can't really take you seriously after reading your profile:
"Hobbies: wrasslin, dope, snuff films, building robots, motorcycles, bra-less women... in that order."
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120 |
Edited by - JimIslander on 05/03/2012 09:44:35 AM |
|
|
|
gotchacovered
Prolific Poster
18106 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2012 : 10:03:28 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by JimIslander
quote:
Originally posted by blue_earth
In a nutshell: Conservative men hate women and conservative women hate themselves.
Most ridiculous post in this thread.
Hate is not the motivating factor here; it is a devotion to a belief. I don't agree with that particular belief either, but it's empirically not HATE that motivates the decisions here.
Of course we can't really take you seriously after reading your profile:
"Hobbies: wrasslin, dope, snuff films, building robots, motorcycles, bra-less women... in that order."
Tidewater 196DC
Yamaha F115
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pungo 120
That's what Blue_Earth typically does. If a Christian says that he doesn't want to send a billion dollars to a terrorist Muslim group, Blue_Earth concludes that the Christian hates Muslims. If a Christian says abortion is wrong, Blue_Earth concludes that the Christian hates women.
In other words, it's starting to look like maybe--just maybe--Blue_Earth might have a hate issue of his own toward Christians.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Duty To Retreat Law?
