Here's something for all you to discuss. NOT to fight over!

A wichita Kansas doctor who performed late term abortions, was shot to death in church Sunday.

As heinous as this is, some people are saying that he got what he deserved.

I disagree with this. You can't blow someone's head off just 'cause you disagree with them.

What do you think?

Heres a link to the story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/

Meh.

Some people just don't get the right to choose arguement, and seem hell bent on imposing their own beliefs on everyone else.

Ah, this is one of those hotly contested minefields. I'm pro-choice, anti-picket line etc. The parent(s) choose to have the unborn removed, not the doctor.

rubiksnoob wrote:. You can't blow someone's head off just 'cause you disagree with them.

Says it all really.

I heard it on the news this evening. Of all the places to happen...

But anyway, I didn't hear if they caught the gunman. I'm assuming gunman because it seems to be women who are the biggest proponents of abortion.

Well I am not a supporter of abortion.But it is you're choice and if you feel you need to do such a thing then go for it.I also think it is unfair to shoot a man for doing his job.

Yeah, I mean, I'm not a supporter of abortion, I think it's taking away an opportunity for a new life to exist, but it's a matter of personal opinion and for some people the burden of an unwanted child can be too great to bear.

No matter what your beliefs, you aren't allowed to kill people.
Flame on!

He performed 3rd trimester abortions. That really, literally, is killing viable babies at that point. I'm shocked he was allowed in a church, much less an usher there.

But agreed, murder is not acceptable.

Wow, getting gunned down in a church and you're a doctor to boot? What the blazes?! Oh right, small town in Kansas...

Murder is definitely not the answer to the shooter's problems but given the lack of a news article link by the OP for all we know the killer was the soon-to-be father or his significant other got killed in the abortion process. Which wouldn't make it more right but puts more shades of grey into the situation.

Ah. I forgot about the whole 'late-term abortion' thing. I didn't watch the whole report and assumed that he was a regular abortion doctor.

Late-term abortion is, in my opinion, no better than murder. It's extinguishing a life that could be classed as sentient at that point.

No matter who that person is or what they do, murder is still murder.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/01/kansas.doctor.killed.charges/index.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheese Elemental wrote:Ah. I forgot about the whole 'late-term abortion' thing. I didn't watch the whole report and assumed that he was a regular abortion doctor.

Late-term abortion is, in my opinion, no better than murder. It's extinguishing a life that could be classed as sentient at that point.

The problem with any fetus/baby and third trimester abortion is the differentiation of one organism from another. If it still gains sustenance from your body and hasn't differentiated itself from you as a separate organism you should be able to remove it (I really don't agree with this entirely. No need to wait until the third trimester). If it continues to live after removal, however, I'm not sure what should be done. Will a baby survive removed from the womb early left to it's own devices? No. Will a baby survive with intensive care in almost any circumstance? Maybe. But in the American health care system you need money to make things move no matter who you are. It might come as a shock to some but in America there is a check out counter in hospitals with cash registers there, and you pay, every time, a lot. And if it's one thing that notoriously doesn't have money, it's children.

Highly flammable topic indeed.

Regardless of any individual's moral position regarding abortion, it is legal in the USA.

While a few very hardline anti-abortionists might see this murder as a blow for FREEEDUUUURM, it may do their cause a disservice among moderates.

At this point there is no indication the shooter was acting on any but his own responsibility.

Kilkrazy wrote:Highly flammable topic indeed.

Regardless of any individual's moral position regarding abortion, it is legal in the USA.

While a few very hardline anti-abortionists might see this murder as a blow for FREEEDUUUURM, it may do their cause a disservice among moderates.

At this point there is no indication the shooter was acting on any but his own responsibility.

I lol'd, super hard.

Is abortion illegal in the U.K. Kilkrazy? Or do you know of anywhere it is illegal in the Western world?

They've caught the shooter at this point. No detail on the shooter from what I can find yet.

First off.... abortion is murder. I can't believe this guy thought he was a Christian and was allowed to be a member in a church.

Second off... murdering a murderer in this context is wrong and is going way to far when it comes to the pro-life movement. I understand why someone would do it, but frankly anyone that would shoot an abortionist is just an unstable fanatic and is no better than the abortionist.


GG

if he killed babies he deserved to die

How is abortion murder? if it was then doctors would be breaking the law in doing so.
shooting someone and killing them is murder.

generalgrog wrote:First off.... abortion is murder. I can't believe this guy thought he was a Christian and was allowed to be a member in a church.

No trolling right? Kidding aside, I respect your opinion.

generalgrog wrote:Second off... murdering a murderer in this context is wrong and is going way to far when it comes to the pro-life movement. I understand why someone would do it, but frankly anyone that would shoot an abortionist is just an unstable fanatic and is no better than the abortionist.

Then how is one to stop someone who is a murderer, but does it in a legal context?

Do you believe abortion is acceptable in certain situations? Such as a rape, retardation or fatal risk to both fetus and mother.

Also, do you believe it should remain illegal for someone to take their own life or for someone to assist someone else in doing so?

Murder is illegal killing, so killing someone legally is, by definition, not murder.

Playing God is far more fun than serving him apparently.

Typeline wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Highly flammable topic indeed.

Regardless of any individual's moral position regarding abortion, it is legal in the USA.

While a few very hardline anti-abortionists might see this murder as a blow for FREEEDUUUURM, it may do their cause a disservice among moderates.

At this point there is no indication the shooter was acting on any but his own responsibility.

I lol'd, super hard.

Is abortion illegal in the U.K. Kilkrazy? Or do you know of anywhere it is illegal in the Western world?

Abortion is legal in the UK under the provisions of The Abortion Act 1967 which allows abortion up to 24 weeks on the combined opinion of two doctors.

Later abortions are also allowed under special circumstances but they are rare.

Abortion is still illegal in Eire though it is legal to take counselling about it and to leave the country in order to seek an abortion elsewhere.

youngblood wrote:Playing God is far more fun than serving him apparently.

The problem is that God doesn't talk to anyone and tell them what is right, right now. No one can really know who is serving God, who is playing his role, or if he even cares/exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Abortion is still illegal in Eire though it is legal to take counselling about it and to leave the country in order to seek an abortion elsewhere.

That seems rather odd. "We made abortion illegal to protect life here in Eire, but if you want one you can leave and get one".

Seems reasonable: "We made abortion illegal to protect life here in Eire, but if you're going to insist then you can leave and get a safe one elsewhere, begorrah."

Nurglitch wrote:Seems reasonable: "We made abortion illegal to protect life here in Eire, but if you're going to insist then you can leave and get a safe one elsewhere, begorrah."

I think it's a political compromise between the power of the church and the practicalities of the situation. It's fairly easy for Irish citizens to get to the UK and have an abortion if they need to.

I'm against abortion, but him being killed is wrong wrong wrong. It is a setback for both sides of the abortion argument.

Besides that basically agreeing with Frazzeled.

The morality of abortion aside, currently it is legal and as a result he has every right to go about his business without fear or harassment.

There are ways and means to legitimately oppose a law. Shooting someone certainly isn't one of them.

Oops wrong thread

^^ wrong thread Mr. Frazzled.

LuciusAR wrote:The morality of abortion aside, currently it is legal and as a result he has every right to go about his business without fear or harassment.

There are ways and means to legitimately oppose a law. Shooting someone certainly isn't one of them.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And plus this guy had a wife, four kids, and 10 grandkids. Talk about tragic.

Heres a link to an article I found on google. I'll put it in the original post as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/

Before I continue let me just say the following comment by me is meant as ironic, I'm not looking to offend anybody's view.

I just wonder what made the killer think that he/she had the right to kill the doctor on behalf of God. Surely God is more than able to deal with anybody who offends him?

Uh, Frazzled, you sure you posted in the right thread?

Ironhide wrote:Uh, Frazzled, you sure you posted in the right thread?

Oops-wrong thread. Sorry.

what both of them did was wrong...

no, its not ok to shoot someone... and no, its not ok to rip someone appart and throw em out with the trash, even if that kind of murder is legal.

Envy89 wrote:what both of them did was wrong...

no, its not ok to shoot someone... and no, its not ok to rip someone appart and throw em out with the trash, even if that kind of murder is legal.

QFT

Just look at the disgusting nature of late term abortion, where they poke a hole into the babys head and suck out the babies brains. Not all things that are legal are right. Slavery was legal at one point. (edited for typos..sheesh)

GG

and Chucky Cheese. Talk about serious evil.

I dont understand why there is hate for this man, he did what he was ASKED to do by the parents...
THEY told him to kill their unborn baby so in what way is he responsible? when a man kills another man does the court inprison the weapon?
To me it seems illogical to blame the tool as he was merely following orders of those who legally own the baby that they are aborting.

Whether the parents should have aborted so late in the pregnancy however is a very different issue.

As far as this goes i actually agree with corpse.
the doc is the gun, but not the person who pulls the trigger (no pun intended here, was just a good ref.)

all these people protest and hassle doctors, yet they are simply doing thier job.


and this topic seems a tad preachy for my liking, so ill leave having said that.

corpsesarefun wrote:I dont understand why there is hate for this man, he did what he was ASKED to do by the parents...
THEY told him to kill their unborn baby so in what way is he responsible? when a man kills another man does the court inprison the weapon?
To me it seems illogical to blame the tool as he was merely following orders of those who legally own the baby that they are aborting.

Whether the parents should have aborted so late in the pregnancy however is a very different issue.

Doctors always have an ethical responsibility, but look at the number of abortions that take place in China and India to avoid having girl babies.

In the UK, late abortions are a tiny percentage of the total and are done for serious medical reasons.

Is it murder when a Soldier shoots the enemy?
Is it murder when a prisoner is executed?


And interesting how all the people mentioning abortion to be wrong are men, and thus less likely to ever have to actually consider it...

Lets not get into a discussion on the efficacy of abortion, especially late term abortion please.

generalgrog wrote:
QFT

Just look at the disgusting nature of late term abortion, where they poke a hole into the babys head and suck out the babies brains. Not all things that are legal are right. Slavery was legal at one point. (edited for typos..sheesh)

GG

Right and wrong are meaningless concepts outside of an accepted framework. In this case the framework is the life of an individual, so right and wrong are determined by that individual.

I should also mention that if you accept the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe abortion to be wrong, then this killing was entirely justified. There is an explicit difference between killing and murder. Killing is acceptable, murder is not. If you believe the doctor murdered babies, then the man who killed did not commit murder per the Biblical definition as he was possessed of just cause.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:And interesting how all the people mentioning abortion to be wrong are men, and thus less likely to ever have to actually consider it...

Do you mean in this forum, or in general?

In this forum.

Not really up on the gender divide in the larger debate.

I blame the Crimson King.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I blame the Crimson King.

'

and I blame King Crimson, but to each their own.

I'm not Christian, so the theological debate is wasted on me.

The guy murdered the doctor.
It was wrong to do so.

So it looks like that report a few weeks ago warning of a possible uptick in right-wing extremism may have had some merit. The Beast has an interesting article on the topic:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-06-01/will-pro-lifers-choose-murder/

one murderedf does not a rise in extremism make. Several were killed and wounded at a recruiting station. Is it fair to say left wing extremism is on the rise? Edit in fact you could make a much stronger case about the rise in shooting at churches in general. We're moving towards the rate of one church shooting a month now. Are the atheists are on a killing spree?

Nope and the other argument is just as stupid.

Even if you belive that abortion is wrong, its not grounds to kill somone.
I belive that animal experimentation is wrong but I don't go around shooting people.

You can't look at a news article and condemn somone.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And interesting how all the people mentioning abortion to be wrong are men, and thus less likely to ever have to actually consider it...

It's that way in every situation. I'd like for it to come down to a vote, that only women have a say on.

Frazzled wrote:one murderedf does not a rise in extremism make. Several were killed and wounded at a recruiting station. Is it fair to say left wing extremism is on the rise? Edit in fact you could make a much stronger case about the rise in shooting at churches in general. We're moving towards the rate of one church shooting a month now. Are the atheists are on a killing spree?

Nope and the other argument is just as stupid.

The shootings at churches going up shows that people no longer see church as a place of sanctuary or holiness. It's just another place to take your arguments and grievances with life.

This particular shooting was outside a church.

There is a fine historical tradition of war and murder in churches, temples and other holy places.

Kilkrazy wrote:This particular shooting was outside a church.

There is a fine historical tradition of war and murder in churches, temples and other holy places.

Oh, I hadn't realized it was outside. I always put any mention of church in my mind frame of what my church is laid out like. Thought it might have occurred in the hall or something.

garret wrote:if he killed babies he deserved to die

So if someone is in a coma and the family let's them go, you would go and blow out the brains of the doctor who did it?

It wasn't murder, it was a 271st trimester abortion.

I bet the Shooter was a "Christian", even though the Teaching of the Torah and New Testament (which I assume Christians Follow) forbid Murder.

It reminds me of some wisdom I heard once:
When was the last time you heard of bombs planted by Atheists in the Name of Atheism?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
QFT

Just look at the disgusting nature of late term abortion, where they poke a hole into the babys head and suck out the babies brains. Not all things that are legal are right. Slavery was legal at one point. (edited for typos..sheesh)

GG

Right and wrong are meaningless concepts outside of an accepted framework. In this case the framework is the life of an individual, so right and wrong are determined by that individual.

I should also mention that if you accept the Bible as the literal word of God, and believe abortion to be wrong, then this killing was entirely justified. There is an explicit difference between killing and murder. Killing is acceptable, murder is not. If you believe the doctor murdered babies, then the man who killed did not commit murder per the Biblical definition as he was possessed of just cause.

Wow thanks for your daily dose of psycho babble dogma. I was really needing your intuition here.

The problem with your supposition of course, is that God or the Bible makes no commandment to go around and commit justifiable homicide. In fact it's just the opposite.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. Matt 5:9

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:I bet the Shooter was a "Christian", even though the Teaching of the Torah and New Testament (which I assume Christians Follow) forbid Murder.

It reminds me of some wisdom I heard once:
When was the last time you heard of bombs planted by Atheists in the Name of Atheism?

You ever heard of the Soviet Union?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I bet the Shooter was a "Christian", even though the Teaching of the Torah and New Testament (which I assume Christians Follow) forbid Murder.

It reminds me of some wisdom I heard once:
When was the last time you heard of bombs planted by Atheists in the Name of Atheism?

You ever heard of the Soviet Union?

GG

I never heard of the Soviet Union Flying Planes into Skyscrapers or having Armies to invade the Middle East.

generalgrog wrote:

Wow thank for your daily dose of psycho babble dogma. I was really needing your intuition here.

Its not intuition, its basic logic. You can't say something is right or wrong without having a standard against which to judge the thing itself. Unless you're willing to say that you have a right to determine the biological affairs of another person you cannot lay claim to a legitimate ban on abortion.

generalgrog wrote:
The problem with your supposition of course, is that God or the Bible makes no commandment to go around and commit justifiable homicide.

That's phenomenally incorrect. The OT is littered with examples of justifiable homicide in the course of war, self-defense, and protection of the innocent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:I never heard of the Soviet Union Flying Planes into Skyscrapers or having Armies to invade the Middle East.

Are you seriously trying to make the case that the Soviet Union was morally superior simply because it militantly enforced an Atheistic worldview? Really?

AdrianG wrote:I'm not Christian, so the theological debate is wasted on me.

The guy murdered the doctor.
It was wrong to do so.

Simple as that. Doesn't matter WHAT the doctor did, you can't just kill a guy for doing his job. Unless his job is "enemy soldier in a combat zone."

I fully support abortion for ANY or even NO) reason, but I am not exactly at the moral center of the world on most issues.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I never heard of the Soviet Union Flying Planes into Skyscrapers or having Armies to invade the Middle East.

Are you seriously trying to make the case that the Soviet Union was morally superior simply because it militantly enforced an Atheistic worldview? Really?

No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

Mattlov wrote:

AdrianG wrote:I'm not Christian, so the theological debate is wasted on me.

The guy murdered the doctor.
It was wrong to do so.

Simple as that. Doesn't matter WHAT the doctor did, you can't just kill a guy for doing his job. Unless his job is "enemy soldier in a combat zone."

I fully support abortion for ANY or even NO) reason, but I am not exactly at the moral center of the world on most issues.

Exactly. A Bundle of Cells growing unwanted inside a Organ is just a Cancer, and a woman has every right to remove it if she wishes. If you don't like it, fine, don't get an abortion. Screw up your own lives, let other people do what they want with theirs

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

Wow thank for your daily dose of psycho babble dogma. I was really needing your intuition here.

Its not intuition, its basic logic. You can't say something is right or wrong without having a standard against which to judge the thing itself. Unless you're willing to say that you have a right to determine the biological affairs of another person you cannot lay claim to a legitimate ban on abortion.

generalgrog wrote:
The problem with your supposition of course, is that God or the Bible makes no commandment to go around and commit justifiable homicide.

That's phenomenally incorrect. The OT is littered with examples of justifiable homicide in the course of war, self-defense, and protection of the innocent.

That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.


GG

waiting for the proverbial comeback

Gwar! wrote:No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:No, I am saying Religion has/will caused/cause far more deaths than atheism ever has.

That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

I don't believe anyone has ever gone into battle with anything other than "God is on my side" in their head.

Well... maybe the commies. And they never really went to battle. Or did they?

An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Exactly.

generalgrog wrote:
That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.

I thought you believed the Bible was the infallible word of God. Doesn't the notion of improvements to the word through the issuance of a new covenant preclude the notion that the Bible is infallible? What's more, if newer is better, then shouldn't you be reading the Koran?

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.

I thought you believed the Bible was the infallible word of God. Doesn't the notion of improvements to the word through the issuance of a new covenant preclude the notion that the Bible is infallible? What's more, if newer is better, then shouldn't you be reading the Koran?

No they should be Reading Diatenics or the Book of Mormon.

More proof all religion is bad for you imo.

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Right, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism aren't the same thing as religion itself. Look guys, I just absolved religion of any culpability with respect to the mistakes of the Big 3.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Only by religion? There isnt one. Can you name a War that was solely motivated by Atheism? No. However, many conflicts have religion as a core issue. The Crusades for one. The Current Conflict in Israel/Palestine/Gumdropland. Spain trying to invade the UK because they got rid of a Catholic Monarch.

Do I have to continue? Yes, they eventually expanded to include reasons other than religion, but the core of the conflict has always been differing religious views.

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Only by religion? There isnt one. Can you name a War that was solely motivated by Atheism? No. However, many conflicts have religion as a core issue. The Crusades for one. The Current Conflict in Israel/Palestine/Gumdropland. Spain trying to invade the UK because they got rid of a Catholic Monarch.

Do I have to continue? Yes, they eventually expanded to include reasons other than religion, but the core of the conflict has always been differing religious views.

Maybe it's not the religious views that everyone differs on actually.

A thought came to mind. Maybe the people behind each conflict slowly manipulate or find a very small religious difference with the opposing side to spark their populace into a frenzy of conscription to fight the heretics as it were. Makes sense eh?

dogma wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Right, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism aren't the same thing as religion itself. Look guys, I just absolved religion of any culpability with respect to the mistakes of the Big 3.

The difference is when you define atheism as being a part of anything that doesn't associate itself with gods, everything becomes atheist by default.

According to your logic, vegetarianism has killed lots of people as well; after all, most political ideologies don't involve the eating of meat. It would be different if you defined vegetarianism as "abstaining from eating meat", and atheism as "consciously choosing to follow no gods".

You're using one definition of the word to try and prove something about a different definition of the word.

Frazzled wrote:one murderedf does not a rise in extremism make.

What, Pennsylvania cops don't count?

reds8n wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:. You can't blow someone's head off just 'cause you disagree with them.

Says it all really.

Well, that's just wrong. You certainly CAN do it, it's the legality thing that bites you in the kiester. Not that I disagree with your sentiment...

Nurglitch wrote:Murder is illegal killing, so killing someone legally is, by definition, not murder.

There is a certain irony in one man murdering another man because he believes his victim is a murderer.

Typeline wrote:

youngblood wrote:Playing God is far more fun than serving him apparently.

The problem is that God doesn't talk to anyone and tell them what is right, right now. No one can really know who is serving God, who is playing his role, or if he even cares/exists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Abortion is still illegal in Eire though it is legal to take counselling about it and to leave the country in order to seek an abortion elsewhere.

That seems rather odd. "We made abortion illegal to protect life here in Eire, but if you want one you can leave and get one".

Everything you know is a lie.

Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK, late abortions are a tiny percentage of the total and are done for serious medical reasons.

Very good point.We don't know if he performed late abortions because he wanted to make a bunch of money, or because letting the baby go to term would have feasibly killed the mother too. If he was doing them for the second reason a huge amount of any 'pro-life' moral authority goes down the drain.

I do find it kind of amusing that someone who is pro-life would promote the ending of life though. You'd think they'd be better served picketing graveyards telling bereaved relatives that 'there's options'.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Is it murder when a Soldier shoots the enemy?
Is it murder when a prisoner is executed?

It is not murder when a Soldier shoots an enemy... that is war.

Execution is another issue... a gray area. i support it only when the evidence is unshakable, like with a confession of the person (or persons).

corpsesarefun wrote:I dont understand why there is hate for this man, he did what he was ASKED to do by the parents...
THEY told him to kill their unborn baby so in what way is he responsible? when a man kills another man does the court inprison the weapon?
To me it seems illogical to blame the tool as he was merely following orders of those who legally own the baby that they are aborting.

using THIS logic, the police should not be able to arrest a hit man / assassin... after all, he did what he was ASKED to do... he was TOLD to kill someone... in what way is he responsible??? why should they imprison the weapon who was merely following orders???

Envy89 wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:I dont understand why there is hate for this man, he did what he was ASKED to do by the parents...
THEY told him to kill their unborn baby so in what way is he responsible? when a man kills another man does the court inprison the weapon?
To me it seems illogical to blame the tool as he was merely following orders of those who legally own the baby that they are aborting.

using THIS logic, the police should not be able to arrest a hit man / assassin... after all, he did what he was ASKED to do... he was TOLD to kill someone... in what way is he responsible??? why should they imprison the weapon who was merely following orders???

Because the Hitman was doing something Illegal, the doctor was not.

dogma wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

Name one significant, historical conflict that was motivated only by religion. Just one.

Orkeosaurus wrote:An atheistic ideology is not the same thing as atheism itself.

Right, so Christianity, Islam, and Judaism aren't the same thing as religion itself. Look guys, I just absolved religion of any culpability with respect to the mistakes of the Big 3.

Wait a minute, gwar and dogma are adding up casualties from conflicts over the millenia of human warfare attributable to the specific sources of Atheism and Religion? I call bs. You both have made assertions indicating that you both have done the math on these. I call you both out to show your figures, because if you cannot show your figures given the wording of your assertions here "Do the math again." and "Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

My bet is both of you ignore this challenge, and in the process gut your arguments.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

There, now you can verify my math. That was my source.

More people died last century in the name of non religion (athesiam) then have died in the name of religon in the history of the world.

Envy89 wrote:More people died last century in the name of non religion (athesiam) then have died in the name of religon in the history of the world.

I think you will find not a SINGLE war in the history of mankind has been "in the name of non religion". So what, did the Soldiers at Normandy start Screaming "Praise Richard Dawkins!" at Omaha? Oh, I suppose World War One was fought to make sure those Uppity Serbians were not in their churches! No, I didn't think so. There have, however, been countless wars "In the name of God/Allah/Yaweh".

Please, go on, show me a SINGLE war that has specifically been done to Spread Atheism or in the name of Atheism. I previously listed some examples of wars done in the name of Religion, so I suppose it is your turn now.

As I understand it, in most states in the US late term abortions are only allowed when the mother's life is in danger. If true, does that mean the only late term abortions the doctor was likely to have performed were to save the mother, and if that's true isn't the debate going on in this thread all a little pointless?

generalgrog wrote:You ever heard of the Soviet Union?

GG

Are you trying to tell me that the violence committed in the Soviet Union was a result of a commitment to atheism? Because that would be ridiculous. The atrocities of the Soviet Union are a direct result of a committed belief to Leninism and Stalinism. That is, a belief in a worldview that is stronger than respect for the individual. That it happened to include atheism is irrelevant, much as Hitler's christianity was irrelevant in comparison to to his facist and racist beliefs.

Atheism can't be condemned for inspiring any of the great evils, because ultimately 'there's no God' doesn't inspire people to anything, good or evil.

sebster wrote:Atheism can't be condemned for inspiring any of the great evils, because ultimately 'there's no God' doesn't inspire people to anything, good or evil.

Apart from going out, having sex and generally living a happy full life.

dogma wrote:That's an absolutely ridiculous notion. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God, so any ideology which does not feature a supreme being is Atheistic. This includes Communism, Capitalism, Imperialism, Fascism, Feudalism, and a whole lot of others that don't need to be mentioned specifically. Do the math again.

Dude, that's nonsense. Trying to attach the deaths of a political system to a religious belief is a ridiculous contrivance, and you know it.

I'll put it this way. If a dude is a Christian and he yells 'death to all non-believers' before opening fire at his workplace, you could argue those killings relate to Christianity. But if a dude is a Christian, gets fired, wigs out and shoots up his workplace they are not Christian killings, people cannot in any sensible way argue these are Christian killings.

Similarly, if a system has an underlying atheist philosophy, but also has 'rich people are immoral and we need to kill them to reach utopia', then it isn't hard to say the latter is a lot bigger deal than the former.

The people killed by fascists were killed for their leftist or subversive tendencies. The people killed by communists for their reactionary tendencies. The people killed under feudalism were killed because a line of hereditary got confused and the nobles involved got greedy. They were not killed because of some magical inherent atheism in their political philosophy.

sebster wrote:Atheism can't be condemned for inspiring any of the great evils, because ultimately 'there's no God' doesn't inspire people to anything, good or evil.

That's pretty much it.

Atheism will never do what religion does, because religions (usually) have a system of values inherent to them and atheism does not.

grizgrin wrote:
Wait a minute, gwar and dogma are adding up casualties from conflicts over the millenia of human warfare attributable to the specific sources of Atheism and Religion? I call bs. You both have made assertions indicating that you both have done the math on these. I call you both out to show your figures, because if you cannot show your figures given the wording of your assertions here "Do the math again." and "Yeah I have. Religion still comes out on top.

My bet is both of you ignore this challenge, and in the process gut your arguments.

I should have been more clear. I don't believe that it makes any sense to suppose that religion is the leading cause of death in world history. It simply isn't possible to separate it from those atheistic motivations I listed earlier. When I said 'Do the math again' I was speaking derisively.

Orkeosaurus wrote:The difference is when you define atheism as being a part of anything that doesn't associate itself with gods, everything becomes atheist by default.

Yep. That's the point.

According to your logic, vegetarianism has killed lots of people as well; after all, most political ideologies don't involve the eating of meat. It would be different if you defined vegetarianism as "abstaining from eating meat", and atheism as "consciously choosing to follow no gods".

That definition of Atheism doesn't make sense. In order to abstain from following a god you would have to admit that such a god existed; making the choice to abstain from worship seem foolish if said god is an omnipotent one. A better definition would be 'the belief in the lack of God or god/s'. However, such a definition is inconsistent with the fact that the word Atheism is the literal negation of the word Theism; making it inappropriate to consider it as a positive belief.

Vegetarianism isn't the negation of anything, so your point is moot.

You're using one definition of the word to try and prove something about a different definition of the word.

No, I'm not. I'm using the minimal definition of Atheism to make a comment about the ridiculousness of attributing massive amounts of human suffering to a broad category of human behavior.

Gwar! wrote:Only by religion? There isnt one. Can you name a War that was solely motivated by Atheism? No. However, many conflicts have religion as a core issue. The Crusades for one. The Current Conflict in Israel/Palestine/Gumdropland. Spain trying to invade the UK because they got rid of a Catholic Monarch.

Do I have to continue? Yes, they eventually expanded to include reasons other than religion, but the core of the conflict has always been differing religious views.

I'd argue that religion was never the primary motivation for any of the conflicts you have listed. It was certainly a factor, but it wasn't as though violence would have been completely avoided if everyone stopped believing in God.

Also, Atheism can't motivate anything as it isn't a positive statement. The whole concept only makes sense in a world where Theism also exists.

sebster wrote:
Dude, that's nonsense. Trying to attach the deaths of a political system to a religious belief is a ridiculous contrivance, and you know it.

That's actually the point I was trying to arrive at. Sadly I hit submit before getting there. I tend to get annoyed when people attempt to pin all human suffering on religious belief, despite the presence of other factors that are nearly impossible pare away.

sebster wrote:
I'll put it this way. If a dude is a Christian and he yells 'death to all non-believers' before opening fire at his workplace, you could argue those killings relate to Christianity. But if a dude is a Christian, gets fired, wigs out and shoots up his workplace they are not Christian killings, people cannot in any sensible way argue these are Christian killings.

Yeah, I agree.

Murder is generally not an acceptable course of action over political disputes like this. Especially as little more than a revenge killing where it has zero chance of a net effect.

Ok this has wandered dangerously off-topic and its probably only a matter of time before Fraz puts the smack down on this thread.

Any chance of getting back to the topic at hand before the mods are forced to smite what was (and could still be) an interesting debate as opposed to a pointless flamefest?

dogma wrote:That's actually the point I was trying to arrive at. Sadly I hit submit before getting there. I tend to get annoyed when people attempt to pin all human suffering on religious belief, despite the presence of other factors that are nearly impossible pare away.

S'cool. I misunderstood you the first time, I think we pretty much agree on this. My earlier response was a little harsh, by the way, and I apologise, I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LuciusAR wrote:Ok this has wandered dangerously off-topic and its probably only a matter of time before Fraz puts the smack down on this thread.

Any chance of getting back to the topic at hand before the mods are forced to smite what was (and could still be) an interesting debate as opposed to a pointless flamefest?

There's no way fraz would abort this thread, it's already reached the fourth pagemester.

Gwar! wrote:http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

There, now you can verify my math. That was my source.

Yeah, and your numbers dont add up. Hell, your source states that it is impossible to fill the gaps in the numbers. The work does a decent job of self-criticism, but that criticism really just re-states that the vageries of historical records render it an impossible equation to define. He even gives a link to some of the contributors to his work who later bailed on his piece.

Did you read this, or just skip to the pretty numbers?

The dead doctor was presumably a Christian since he was shot after leaving church.

The shooter's religion (if any) isn't yet known. We assume he must be a Christian because in the USA it is the Christian far right who are so anti-abortion as to possibly provoke this kind of attack.

It is not the first time an abortion doctor or clinic has been shot at or bombed. Such acts are basically terrorism. Their objective is to create terror in the providers and users of the service.

I don't believe there is a terrorist plot by right-wing evangelical US churches to get rid of abortion. I think that the kind of fervour they inspire in their adherents may lead a few unbalanced individuals to commit such acts.

It is impossible to see such actions as inspired by New Testament teachings. They are clearly Old Testament in spirit.

grizgrin wrote:
Yeah, and your numbers dont add up. Hell, your source states that it is impossible to fill the gaps in the numbers. The work does a decent job of self-criticism, but that criticism really just re-states that the vageries of historical records render it an impossible equation to define. He even gives a link to some of the contributors to his work who later bailed on his piece.

Did you read this, or just skip to the pretty numbers?

To carry your point even further: The source in question doesn't even deal in religion. Its a page about general mass violence which openly states that the 20 worst events in human history did not have a direct connection to religion. Unless all violence is inherently religious (a point I wouldn't necessarily be afraid of making) Gwar! has some 'splainin to do.

Some people are posting as if the doctor would abort ANY late term fetus. Everything I've read has said that late abortions are only done in rare cases such as the baby being doomed to an early death after being born from genetic defects, etc. This doctor is a normal doctor in that respect I assume.

namegoeshere wrote:Some people are posting as if the doctor would abort ANY late term fetus. Everything I've read has said that late abortions are only done in rare cases such as the baby being doomed to an early death after being born from genetic defects, etc. This doctor is a normal doctor in that respect I assume.

I believe that late term abortions are permitted where the mother's life or mental stability are in serious danger, or if the child would die before or shortly after birth. It's been a long running element of the pro-life movement to hide that fact, and just talk about late term abortions as if anyone can sleep around, procrastinate for six months then decide its about time to get that abortion.

Gwar! wrote:I never heard of the Soviet Union Flying Planes into Skyscrapers or having Armies to invade the Middle East.

Well... where do you think Afghanistan is ?

According to Wikipedia, which I have decided to trust in this case because its information accords with other sources I have read, only a small percentage of abortions occur in the late phase of pregnancy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#Incidence_of_later_abortion

Of course, the religious right's stance is that all abortion is wrong. They pick on late abortion because it is a photogenic target.

Kilkrazy wrote:The dead doctor was presumably a Christian since he was shot after leaving church.

The shooter's religion (if any) isn't yet known. We assume he must be a Christian because in the USA it is the Christian far right who are so anti-abortion as to possibly provoke this kind of attack.

It is not the first time an abortion doctor or clinic has been shot at or bombed. Such acts are basically terrorism. Their objective is to create terror in the providers and users of the service.

I don't believe there is a terrorist plot by right-wing evangelical US churches to get rid of abortion. I think that the kind of fervour they inspire in their adherents may lead a few unbalanced individuals to commit such acts.

True, but there's no plot among the Saudis to destroy America. But certain cultures are more likely to produce violent fanatics and terrorists. The issue is whether the American religious right (having been used and abused by the conservative right for a decade or so and then dumped out into political obscurity) might be moving towards a more extreme position, where it is more likely to produce violent fanatics. But that's based mostly on that Dept of Homeland Security report, because at this point all we have is a doctor who was probably killed because he was an abortionist, and if that's true it was probably by a member of the religious right.

It is impossible to see such actions as inspired by New Testament teachings. They are clearly Old Testament in spirit.

I can't see anyone reading any book, religious or otherwise, then deciding they better go shoot somebody. This kind of crazy takes a village.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

reds8n wrote:

Gwar! wrote:I never heard of the Soviet Union Flying Planes into Skyscrapers or having Armies to invade the Middle East.

Well... where do you think Afghanistan is ?

Asia. Where do you think it is?

Gwar! wrote:I bet the Shooter was a "Christian", even though the Teaching of the Torah and New Testament (which I assume Christians Follow) forbid Murder.

It reminds me of some wisdom I heard once:
When was the last time you heard of bombs planted by Atheists in the Name of Atheism?

Hitler killed millions
Stalin and Lenin killed tens of millions
Estimates are up to 100MM killed in China in the revolutions and the following terror.
Pol Pot killed one quarter of the population.
Someone shot up a recruiting center yesterday and killed a soldier.


What was your point again?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

namegoeshere wrote:Some people are posting as if the doctor would abort ANY late term fetus. Everything I've read has said that late abortions are only done in rare cases such as the baby being doomed to an early death after being born from genetic defects, etc. This doctor is a normal doctor in that respect I assume.

That is not correct. He would abort any Late term baby. In the 3rd trimester its a baby.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
That's why there is a "new" covenent. They talk about the "new" covenent in this collection of books called the "new" testament.

So no, I'm not "phenomenally" incorrect. If I lived over 2,000 years ago then I would be phenomally incorect. Although I should have been a bit more clearer, I forget who I'm dealing with sometimes.

I thought you believed the Bible was the infallible word of God. Doesn't the notion of improvements to the word through the issuance of a new covenant preclude the notion that the Bible is infallible? What's more, if newer is better, then shouldn't you be reading the Koran?

No they should be Reading Diatenics or the Book of Mormon.

More proof all religion is bad for you imo.

This thread is closed.