Graphic Abortion Ad to Air During Superbowl.

macpatti

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

Surely this is a joke. I'm sorry, but what is your point? How is wanting to protect the life of a human the same as eating meat? Unless you're talking about eating human meat. I don't even understand your last sentence.

nikolaim5

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

Surely this is a joke. I'm sorry, but what is your point? How is wanting to protect the life of a human the same as eating meat? Unless you're talking about eating human meat. I don't even understand your last sentence.

Not a joke. Really, you don't understand? I'll assume you're ok with murdering animals with fully developed brains then.

macpatti

Not a joke. Really, you don't understand? I'll assume you're ok with murdering animals with fully developed brains then.

Ha! I'm sorry, I don't have the time nor energy to even attempt to debate this with you. Eating meat does not "represent a huge double standard in my murder theory". But, thanks for the laugh.

Bahet

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

Surely this is a joke. I'm sorry, but what is your point? How is wanting to protect the life of a human the same as eating meat? Unless you're talking about eating human meat. I don't even understand your last sentence.

Not a joke. Really, you don't understand? I'll assume you're ok with murdering animals with fully developed brains then.

Humans are FAR superior to animals doncha know? Slaughtering a living, breathing, thinking, feeling animal = yummy. Aborting an embryo with no fully functioning organs and no ability to feel anything = murder.

MikeSEA

Going back to the ad...i don't really see the point. Pro-lifers will remain so, and people who are pro choice or on the fence will be completely turned off by the aggressiveness of the message. I assume the party paying for the ad disagrees with my second point, but I call it like I see it.

KimmyEB

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

You sir, pose a very interesting question. I like it!

poisongirl6485

I'm not reading 15 pages on this, sorry.

Regarding the OP....a graphic ad of ANY sort has no business being on during the Super Bowl as I consider the Super Bowl a FAMILY program, and no children should be shown graphic images like that. Just like how it's inappropriate when the local pro-life group plasters graphic ads up right near a elementary school that's semi-close to a contraceptive clinic.

TheRoadDog

"It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry. "


H. L. Mencken

nikolaim5

Not a joke. Really, you don't understand? I'll assume you're ok with murdering animals with fully developed brains then.

Ha! I'm sorry, I don't have the time nor energy to even attempt to debate this with you. Eating meat does not "represent a huge double standard in my murder theory". But, thanks for the laugh.

You're Welcome! Thanks for not having an answer, thus proving the hypocrisy of your position.

For the record, I'm ok with the ad. Groups should be able to say what they want whether I agree with them or not. I won't get upset about this ad when I'm all for the atheist bus ads that caused so much controversy a while back. That would be hypocritical of me.

macpatti

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

You sir, pose a very interesting question. I like it!

Kimmy~ I saw that you thought this question was interesting, and I believe you're sincere in that quetion, so I'm replying from my point of view on this issue. I am “pro-life” in respect to human life. Since I don’t eat humans, I am not a hypocrite. I believe that human life is unique and precious because humans are made to love and know God (among other unique potentialities). Since cows and chickens do not give evidence of being able to know and love God, I believe that human life is to be respected in a different way than animal life. That being said, I don’t think there are right and wrong ways to treat animals. I don’t think torturing animals for fun, for instance, is morally justifiable. I do think many animals experience pain in a sensory way that resembles human suffering and that we should not find enjoyment in inflicting such punishment on them. This does not mean, however, that human and animal life are equal and that all the same moral principles apply in both cases. All our laws in this country are based on the same distinction, as far as I can tell. Hope this helps!

atomiclauren

I think it's interesting, too, since I've never thought about it too deeply regarding animals and capacities to think and feel. I'll be first in line to state that I am *very* removed from the process of eating meat. I don't buy it a lot, but I do buy it in a pretty package and hope when they say "humane" and whatnot, that it's true to the best of their abilities. That's it. I'd most certainly be 100% vegetarian if I had to go out there and do it all myself.

Thoughts worth thinking, perhaps!

daffodilsoup

I believe that human life is unique and precious because humans are made to love and know God (among other unique potentialities). Since cows and chickens do not give evidence of being able to know and love God, I believe that human life is to be respected in a different way than animal life.

Please note that this is being asked in a completely un-snarky, serious manner: why then, does God not "make" animals to know and love him? The animals are pretty innocent in this case - how does the fact that they are incapable of "knowing and loving him" make it justifiable to slaughter them?

MikeSEA

I believe that human life is unique and precious because humans are made to love and know God (among other unique potentialities). Since cows and chickens do not give evidence of being able to know and love God, I believe that human life is to be respected in a different way than animal life.

Please note that this is being asked in a completely un-snarky, serious manner: why then, does God not "make" animals to know and love him? The animals are pretty innocent in this case - how does the fact that they are incapable of "knowing and loving him" make it justifiable to slaughter them?

I can't know for sure, but I would guess that the response would be something along the lines of "We can't ask the question 'why' of God here because we can't know the mind of God; he has a plan for all creatures, and it isn't our place to question his intentions. We'll know more once we're dead."

I don't happen to agree with that stance, but it seems to be common enough in my own experience.

nikolaim5

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

You sir, pose a very interesting question. I like it!

Kimmy~ I saw that you thought this question was interesting, and I believe you're sincere in that quetion, so I'm replying from my point of view on this issue. I am “pro-life” in respect to human life. Since I don’t eat humans, I am not a hypocrite. I believe that human life is unique and precious because humans are made to love and know God (among other unique potentialities). Since cows and chickens do not give evidence of being able to know and love God, I believe that human life is to be respected in a different way than animal life. That being said, I don’t think there are right and wrong ways to treat animals. I don’t think torturing animals for fun, for instance, is morally justifiable. I do think many animals experience pain in a sensory way that resembles human suffering and that we should not find enjoyment in inflicting such punishment on them. This does not mean, however, that human and animal life are equal and that all the same moral principles apply in both cases. All our laws in this country are based on the same distinction, as far as I can tell. Hope this helps!

Can you answer the question without dragging god into the equation, whom many of us don't believe in? Evidence of knowing and loving him.... hmmm. Do you speak whale or dolphin? Regardless, wouldn't actual proof be better before condoning animal murder but not fetus murder? "Your Honor, we're pretty sure the defendant killed the victim but we can't say for certain. Yup, I think he should get the death penalty though, pretty sure, I think." I know what you're thinking, I know. No one can actually prove the existence of god either way. So let's just have faith that he's cool with us slaughtering animals. Fingers crossed!

adrian_indy

It's an intersting point about animals possessing more mental ability than a fetus, but it's a stretch. If a person wants not to eat meat, fine by me. But since I have canine teeth and it stands to reason that hunting, gathering, and fishing have been a staple of human exsistance for somewhere between 245,000 and 65,000 years, give or take a few thousand years and depending on when man actually became man.

Quite simply for me, I think it should be stated that in my position that a fetus that cannot sustain itself outside of the womb does not have the same rights as a human being, I openly admit I could be wrong. My thougt process is as follows. The soul is a mythical idea. No scientific data to my knowledge has ever conclusively proved we had a soul. Even science had proved the soul, in order for me to change my mind on being pro-choice for the small fetus, I would have to be shown when the fetus's soul becomes intact in order to be swayed that it had equal rights to the mother. Now I know that there is a possiblity that I could be wrong. I know that in all actuality, all though I do not believe this, abortion could in fact be the murder of a baby. But in my opinion (which seems to always be in the minority) life is not more important than freedom. Since I do not know with any certainty that the fetus is a conscience human being, I will not risk taking away women's personal rights on a hunch.

On a side note, I think that the baby having a heart beat as a sign it is a human being, while poetic, is not a game changer. Why is the heart the only organ that signifies life? There are a lot of organs we can't funcion without. Seems the heart gets all the attention because it makes noise.

nikolaim5

Good points adrian. Just to be clear, I too am a meat eating, lover of leather shoes.

KimmyEB

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

You sir, pose a very interesting question. I like it!

Kimmy~ I saw that you thought this question was interesting, and I believe you're sincere in that quetion, so I'm replying from my point of view on this issue. I am “pro-life” in respect to human life. Since I don’t eat humans, I am not a hypocrite. I believe that human life is unique and precious because humans are made to love and know God (among other unique potentialities). Since cows and chickens do not give evidence of being able to know and love God, I believe that human life is to be respected in a different way than animal life. That being said, I don’t think there are right and wrong ways to treat animals. I don’t think torturing animals for fun, for instance, is morally justifiable. I do think many animals experience pain in a sensory way that resembles human suffering and that we should not find enjoyment in inflicting such punishment on them. This does not mean, however, that human and animal life are equal and that all the same moral principles apply in both cases. All our laws in this country are based on the same distinction, as far as I can tell. Hope this helps!

I was indeed sincere. It was an idea thrown into the mix that I had never thought of, but it got me thinking once I saw it!

I have very, very, VERY mixed feelings about eating meat to begin with, so I'm not a good person to answer. :ohwell:

mikajoanow

I hope none of you pro-lifer's eat meat. That would represent a huge double standard in your murder theory no? Don't tell me it's different because it's human either. Fully grown animals have far more mental capacity than any human fetus.

You sir, pose a very interesting question. I like it!

Kimmy~ I saw that you thought this question was interesting, and I believe you're sincere in that quetion, so I'm replying from my point of view on this issue. I am “pro-life” in respect to human life. Since I don’t eat humans, I am not a hypocrite. I believe that human life is unique and precious because humans are made to love and know God (among other unique potentialities). Since cows and chickens do not give evidence of being able to know and love God, I believe that human life is to be respected in a different way than animal life. That being said, I don’t think there are right and wrong ways to treat animals. I don’t think torturing animals for fun, for instance, is morally justifiable. I do think many animals experience pain in a sensory way that resembles human suffering and that we should not find enjoyment in inflicting such punishment on them. This does not mean, however, that human and animal life are equal and that all the same moral principles apply in both cases. All our laws in this country are based on the same distinction, as far as I can tell. Hope this helps!

I was indeed sincere. It was an idea thrown into the mix that I had never thought of, but it got me thinking once I saw it!

I have very, very, VERY mixed feelings about eating meat to begin with, so I'm not a good person to answer. :ohwell:

I have mixed feelings about it also.

macpatti

Please note that this is being asked in a completely un-snarky, serious manner: why then, does God not "make" animals to know and love him? The animals are pretty innocent in this case - how does the fact that they are incapable of "knowing and loving him" make it justifiable to slaughter them?

Concerning why God did not make animals to know and love him, I can only conjecture. Perhaps God made the various different plants and animals in order to reveal to humans the vast diversity of God's creative power. Perhaps God created the plants and animals in order to serve the needs of human beings. Perhaps God gradually brought forth the potentialities of matter by producing plants and animals and then infused "spirit" into material beings when humans appeared. We are then able to discover the works and plan of God by studying the world and its history as evidenced in the plant and animal world. Perhaps God made the plants and animals simply because temporary beings of various sorts are inherently interesting and beautiful even though they are not made to last forever.

Again, the capacity to "know and love God" implies an eternal, transcendent purpose for human life. This also means that human life cannot be viewed as merely a means to some human "end" or goal but, instead, human life must be viewed as an "end" in itself that is oriented (whether it knows it or not) towards an inestimable/infinitely valuable purpose. For me to destroy an innocent human life is to assume the right to destroy a life made to discover and know God for my own purposes. This means I am "using" another human AS IF that human is made for ME rather than made for God. Since the plants and animals have no such transcendent purpose or "goal," we may use them for temporary purposes.

Bahet

On a side note, I think that the baby having a heart beat as a sign it is a human being, while poetic, is not a game changer. Why is the heart the only organ that signifies life? There are a lot of organs we can't funcion without. Seems the heart gets all the attention because it makes noise.

Excellent question. Why not the brain or the liver or kidneys? We can't live without them either. My guess is it's because the heart is the earliest to be detected and because of emotions. ("I love him with all my heart" and all that.)

nikolaim5

Please note that this is being asked in a completely un-snarky, serious manner: why then, does God not "make" animals to know and love him? The animals are pretty innocent in this case - how does the fact that they are incapable of "knowing and loving him" make it justifiable to slaughter them?

Concerning why God did not make animals to know and love him, I can only conjecture. Perhaps God made the various different plants and animals in order to reveal to humans the vast diversity of God's creative power. Perhaps God created the plants and animals in order to serve the needs of human beings. Perhaps God gradually brought forth the potentialities of matter by producing plants and animals and then infused "spirit" into material beings when humans appeared. We are then able to discover the works and plan of God by studying the world and its history as evidenced in the plant and animal world. Perhaps God made the plants and animals simply because temporary beings of various sorts are inherently interesting and beautiful even though they are not made to last forever.

Again, the capacity to "know and love God" implies an eternal, transcendent purpose for human life. This also means that human life cannot be viewed as merely a means to some human "end" or goal but, instead, human life must be viewed as an "end" in itself that is oriented (whether it knows it or not) towards an inestimable/infinitely valuable purpose. For me to destroy an innocent human life is to assume the right to destroy a life made to discover and know God for my own purposes. This means I am "using" another human AS IF that human is made for ME rather than made for God. Since the plants and animals have no such transcendent purpose or "goal," we may use them for temporary purposes.

Patti, I was hoping we could debate without god but that's alright. Many modern religious folk would agree that certain aspects of the bible are open to interpretation due to it's age and context. This leaves room for modern scientific fact and religious belief to coexist for them. I'm talking about things like evolution and the fact the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. What is your stance on evolution and the age of the Earth Patti? I'm merely trying to establish a base from which we can debate! If we disagree on some basics then it's kind of pointless. Obviously we disagree on god but I don't think the debate necessarily has to die because of that.

macpatti

Patti, I was hoping we could debate without god but that's alright. Many modern religious folk would agree that certain aspects of the bible are open to interpretation due to it's age and context. This leaves room for modern scientific fact and religious belief to coexist for them. I'm talking about things like evolution and the fact the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. What is your stance on evolution and the age of the Earth Patti? I'm merely trying to establish a base from which we can debate! If we disagree on some basics then it's kind of pointless. Obviously we disagree on god but I don't think the debate necessarily has to die because of that.

Hey, Niko! Sorry, it's just not possible for me to debate abortion, my pro-life position (and whether eating meat makes me a hypocrit) without God. Every position I have, every conviction upon which I stand, and every moral principle I have has God at the center. I didn't mean to ignore your comments to be rude. It was just clear that you didn't want to hear from me unless I could discuss these issues without God.
Regarding my position on evolution, there is a rather long thread in this group on the subject already. I'd rather not start a new one, but I'll be happy to address any questions you have regarding my position after you've read through my comments in the other thread.

macpatti

Can you answer the question without dragging god into the equation, whom many of us don't believe in? Evidence of knowing and loving him.... hmmm. Do you speak whale or dolphin? Regardless, wouldn't actual proof be better before condoning animal murder but not fetus murder? "Your Honor, we're pretty sure the defendant killed the victim but we can't say for certain. Yup, I think he should get the death penalty though, pretty sure, I think." I know what you're thinking, I know. No one can actually prove the existence of god either way. So let's just have faith that he's cool with us slaughtering animals. Fingers crossed!

Just now seeing this one. Sorry, but I have no interest in debating with someone who debates this way. It doesn't seem that you want to debate in a mature, respectful way, but you want to belittle and use sarcasm. That's cool if that's the kind of debate you enjoy. I don't, so I'll leave it to someone else to reply to you.

TheRoadDog

When the Superbowl is over, is there any way to delete this whole thread?

adrian_indy

When the Superbowl is over, is there any way to delete this whole thread?

I depends on the age of the thread. If it has matured sufficiently, I say we keep it. If not, I think the OP has the right to abort it.

macpatti

When the Superbowl is over, is there any way to delete this whole thread?

There's always a way to ignore it. When you go to "My Topics" and see "Graphic Abortion Ad to Air Duriing Superbowl", don't click on it.

TheRoadDog

When the Superbowl is over, is there any way to delete this whole thread?

There's always a way to ignore it. When you go to "My Topics" and see "Graphic Abortion Ad to Air Duriing Superbowl", don't click on it.

Be like trying to ignore the conflict in the Middle East.

fbmandy55

When the Superbowl is over, is there any way to delete this whole thread?

There's always a way to ignore it. When you go to "My Topics" and see "Graphic Abortion Ad to Air Duriing Superbowl", don't click on it.

Be like trying to ignore the conflict in the Middle East.

:laugh:

nikolaim5

Patti, I apologize for my sarcasm, too many years on the internet forums I imagine

I can believe that God created the world and guided an evolutionary process with the goal of eventually bringing humans into this world without contradicting the meaning of the biblical stories. To put it simply, whether or not one accepts some version of the theory of evolution should be based on the scientific evidence for that theory, not because the Bible supports or does not support it.

Anyhow, thanks for pointing me to that thread on evolution. Above is a quote of yours from that thread and I'm glad to hear you agree with Evolutionary fact. This bring me back to my point about the value of life with regards to humans and animals. Given that you agree that we as humans evolved from an early state such as Australopithecus (basically our ape-like ancestral form), were those early human lives more valuable than our equally intelligent modern primate brothers? Isn't it logical to think that modern primates are on a path of evolution which would eventually lead to increased intelligence? In fact, given that our human roots can be traced to fish, wouldn't it be safe to assume that all animals are on a path to higher intelligence? What I'm getting at is that just because we are the only current species with enough "intelligence" to know god, who's to say the other species won't as well at some point? Were early human lives less valuable than modern human lives because they didn't know god? Should animal's lives be less valuable than ours because they don't know god, yet?

macpatti

Patti, I apologize for my sarcasm, too many years on the internet forums I imagine

Accepted!

Anyhow, thanks for pointing me to that thread on evolution. Above is a quote of yours from that thread and I'm glad to hear you agree with Evolutionary fact. This bring me back to my point about the value of life with regards to humans and animals. Given that you agree that we as humans evolved from an early state such as Australopithecus (basically our ape-like ancestral form), were those early human lives more valuable than our equally intelligent modern primate brothers? Isn't it logical to think that modern primates are on a path of evolution which would eventually lead to increased intelligence? In fact, given that our human roots can be traced to fish, wouldn't it be safe to assume that all animals are on a path to higher intelligence? What I'm getting at is that just because we are the only current species with enough "intelligence" to know god, who's to say the other species won't as well at some point? Were early human lives less valuable than modern human lives because they didn't know god? Should animal's lives be less valuable than ours because they don't know god, yet?

The logic you are suggesting, it seems to me, would lead to the conclusion that we can’t eat anything that lives (since it is “possible” that all other plants and animals “might” evolve towards intelligence). Concerning “pre-human” ancestors, this is highly hypothetical. To my mind, if a being has intellect and will (making possible the search for truth and goodness), it is endowed with the “image of God” or likeness to God (meaning by that having the potential to know and love God ) and therefore should be treated as an “end” and not a “means.” At what point that might have happened in evolutionary history is anyone’s guess. I don’t think the current evidence is sufficient to form a certain judgment.