Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-25-2005, 11:04 AM   #1 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Finally, a pro life bill that liberals can agree on

When will the insanity end???


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/j...20050225.shtml

The end of ideology (as we know it)
Jonah Goldberg


February 25, 2005


Maine State Rep. Brian Duprey introduced an unusual piece of legislation this month. It's a pro-life bill designed to tighten protections for the unborn. That's not the unusual part. That happens all the time. The interesting part is that Duprey's bill is designed to protect gay fetuses.

Rep. Duprey told a local paper, The Magic City Morning Star, that he'd been listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio show when Limbaugh commented that if scientists ever located the genetic cause for homosexuality - the so-called "gay gene" - then homosexuals would become pro-life "overnight."

"Most people would agree that to kill someone just because that person might be gay would constitute a hate crime," Duprey said. "I have heard from women who told me that if they found out that they were carrying a child with the gay gene, then they would abort. I think this is wrong. Those unborn children should be protected." That's why he introduced LD 908, "An Act to Protect Homosexuals from Discrimination."

Now, I don't know if Duprey's on the up-and-up with all of this. I don't even know if he's against abortions for straight babies. I also doubt that we'll ever find anything like a "gay gene." Still, this little stunt ought to provoke some much-needed reflection about technology, ideology and human society.

Just imagine, for the sake of argument, that Rep. Duprey is right - that sometime in the near future women will be able to abort their pregnancies solely to avoid giving birth to a gay kid. Would this increase the number of pro-life gays and put pressure on the political alliance between gay groups and pro-abortion groups? Probably (although there are significant numbers of pro-life gays and lesbians already).

Nothing sharpens a man's mind as knowing he'll be hanged in the morning, as the saying goes. Likewise, one may assume without fear of much contradiction that homosexuals would greet the prospect of the quiet annihilation of their culture with a special revulsion they do not (for the most part) reserve for the consequences of abortion generally. (This desire to protect an identity group culture is not unique to gays. For example, some radical members of the deaf community oppose cochlear implants and other remedies for deafness because they see it as destructive to their unique culture.)

There is little chance that a law like Duprey's would be nationalized, much less enforced ruthlessly. But what if it were? How could supporters deny that gays weren't being granted "special rights" since non-homosexual children would not have the same right to life? Faced with this massive contradiction between banning the termination of gay children but permitting women to abort all other children for any motive under the sun - gender selection, disease, etc. - would pro-choicers split apart? Would some on the right commit the horrid heresy of endorsing abortion only for "undesirables" but not for others?

Heck, I don't know.

But let's leave aside abortion and imagine what I think is the more possible - though not necessarily probable - scenario. Let's suppose that homosexuality is derived not solely from genetic dispensation but also from specific hormonal processes during gestation (as well as cultural factors). Let's also suppose that a way was found to "remedy" homosexuality in utero with a pill or an injection. The procedure might be no more intrusive than taking prenatal vitamins.

Well, then, in the American context is it so outlandish to imagine that the entire debate about the role of homosexuals in society would disappear along with substantial numbers of homosexuals in successive generations? The turbulent period from the Stonewall riots to gay marriage would be just one fascinating but brief parentheses in the history of the republic. And the "silent spring" of homosexuality would open a completely unprecedented chapter in human history, since homosexuality has always been with us. What would happen to the ideological feuds that are currently fueled implicitly or explicitly by homosexuality? What would happen to the culture and the economy? Again: I dunno.

Now, please keep in mind I'm not advocating, or even remotely enthusiastic about, these or any other similar prospects. The point is not to wish for some abracadabra that would make homosexuals disappear. Rather, it is to point out how profoundly transformative and corrosive technology can be to our established concepts and institutions.

We have a tendency to assume that existing ideological categories are permanent. History is the study of the repeated debunking of such assumptions. The saddle, the stirrup, the moat, the locomotive, the telephone, the atomic bomb, the car, the computer, the birth control pill: All of these caused tectonic changes in ideological arrangements, and all of them, save the last, were primarily innovations in transportation, communication or war. The new earthquakes to come from biotechnology - "cures" for homosexuality, unimaginable longevity, real "happy pills" - could level all of the landmarks of our ideological landscape, even redefining the first ideology, conservatism.

It's been said that conservatism can be defined as the idea that human nature has no history. As we look around right now, that idea is on the brink of oblivion.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 11:11 AM   #2 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
This bill is odd, but it brings up some good ideas and doesn't have the real scope in mind.
When developmental genetic testing is available there needs to be some guidelines, possibly to what a parent is allowed to know pre-birth.
There is room for abuse in a parent selecting on a wide range of already forming attributes, sexual orientation shouldn't be one a parent can try to "weed out".

btw. being townhall, there is some filtering. It's not a 'pro-life bill'. It's an anti discrimination bill that is too narrowly focused and poorly thought out.

Last edited by Superbelt; 02-25-2005 at 11:13 AM..
Superbelt is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 02:00 PM   #3 (permalink)
whosoever
 
martinguerre's Avatar
 
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonah Goldberg
...profoundly transformative and corrosive technology can be to our established concepts and institutions."
That was the line that made that a worthwhile read. The issue is greater than any particular incarnation...what happens to difference in an age where we have increasing abilities to chose the outcome of our reproduction?
__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16
martinguerre is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 02:35 PM   #4 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Several years back I was a Planned Parenthood escort, so I've seen just about every type of protestor you can imagine and heard every type of argument you can imagine.

Anyway, we had this older hispanic protestor that was...well...eccentric. Occassionally he would dress like an ape and brandish a stuffed monkey, all the while yelling that animals didn't kill their babies (not true), while on other occassions he hauled out an Infant of Prague doll/statue (google it if you don't know what I'm talking about) and used that to rail against the women entering the clinic.

Well, he told one of our escorts one day that the orb the infant held would turn blue if the soon to be aborted baby was a boy and pink if it was a girl. BUT!!! sometimes it went back and forth between the two colors and on those occassions, he kept quiet because the baby was a queer and it was better off aborted.

Absolutely, 100% true story.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 02:49 PM   #5 (permalink)
Loser
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCB
But let's leave aside abortion and imagine what I think is the more possible - though not necessarily probable - scenario. Let's suppose that homosexuality is derived not solely from genetic dispensation but also from specific hormonal processes during gestation (as well as cultural factors). Let's also suppose that a way was found to "remedy" homosexuality in utero with a pill or an injection. The procedure might be no more intrusive than taking prenatal vitamins.

Well, then, in the American context is it so outlandish to imagine that the entire debate about the role of homosexuals in society would disappear along with substantial numbers of homosexuals in successive generations? The turbulent period from the Stonewall riots to gay marriage would be just one fascinating but brief parentheses in the history of the republic. And the "silent spring" of homosexuality would open a completely unprecedented chapter in human history, since homosexuality has always been with us. What would happen to the ideological feuds that are currently fueled implicitly or explicitly by homosexuality? What would happen to the culture and the economy? Again: I dunno.
This is a very good question, and one that suggests that equal rights be afforded to homosexuals immediately, to reduce the stigma that society has for homosexuals, to ensure that "remedies" are not something someone would deem beneficial, once they are available.
Manx is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 04:33 PM   #6 (permalink)
Minion of the scaléd ones
 
Tophat665's Avatar
 
Location: Northeast Jesusland
Oh, When you said a "Pro-Life" bill, I thought you had a bill barring the death penalty, but this is just a clever twist on a Pro-Theocracy bill, twistd in such a way as to negate itself.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
Tophat665 is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 05:20 PM   #7 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
The whole idea of aborting what are considered genetic inferior fetuses will be something society will have to deal with as we learn more about genetics. It seems difficult to deny people the right to do this, after all isn't this also part of what "choice" is all about?

It seems that some parts of the world are dealing with selective abortions already.

Unwelcome in India
Aborting Girls Increases

One of the most disturbing results of the 1991 Indian census was that a decline in the female proportion of the population, evident since the turn of the century, has not been reversed. Neglect for girls from birth onwards is the main reason. But an alarming trend of aborting unborn female children is sweeping the land.

What began as a middle-class, urban phenomenon is now penetrating rural areas as well. Ultrasound clinics can be found in medium-sized towns, while roving diagnostic teams take their ultrasound scanners wherever there is a demand. They advertise using catchlines like ‘Spend 600 rupees ($23) now and save 50,000 rupees later.’ The implication is that by avoiding a girl, couples will be spared the heavy dowry expected in Hindu society.

So far only Maharashtra state has banned pre-natal sex determination. In Rohtak, a town in Haryana, there are four ultrasound clinics. In the past decade Rohtak’s sex ratio has declined from 879 women per 1000 men to 866. ‘The very existence of women is under attack’, said Jagmati Sangwan, a physical education instructor at a college in Rohtak. ‘They are being denied even the right to be born.’
flstf is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 09:01 PM   #8 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
NCB - Don't get too excited about your utopian society just yet. You do understand that sexuality is a natural disposition, not the by-product of a single "deviant" gene you could try to cure like a cancerous cell, right? The point of understanding differences in genetic coding between people is that hopefully we can get away from fear and intolerance by showing that a person's orientation is natural for him or her, not some hedonistic choice to spite your religion.

Much like you had a genetic disposition for math vs. english, chess vs. football, vanilla vs. chocolate - all of these things we are also beginning to understand to be wired into and traceable in an individual's coding. The tricky part is that most of us don't like exclusively chocolate OR vanilla - we just have preferences to varying degrees. Kinsey's research proved it is the same with people's sexual orientation, and efforts to slap gay or straight labels (and laws) on people is as ridiculous and futile as if I were to legislate your choice of ice cream.

My point is that your preferences and my preferences aren't going anywhere short of a labotomy. It's who we are. If somebody wanted to abort a child on the chance the child may be gay? I'd say that person shouldn't be a parent anyway.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-25-2005, 10:17 PM   #9 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: IOWA
It's kinda funny (in a wrong sort of way). Do you honestly think very conservative legislators would vote for this, because I doubt conservative christians would. The million dollar question (if the gay gene were to be found -- doubt it-- but if it is) is if a women who is completely against abortion and doesn't hate gays but doesn't believe homosexuality, do you think she would abort it or give birth? Makes you wonder how pro-life some people are, you either are or your not, even if the kid born is gay. And who cares, has long as he or she is a good-natured human being, we need more of those poeple these days.

Clink clink. Those are my 2 cents.
__________________
Friends don't shake hands, friends 'gotta HUG!
drakers is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 12:28 AM   #10 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Or, the question nobody will answer for me is how as Gov. of Texas do you kill 10x's as many prisoners (120) as the next closet state by way of execution, and have the balls to shut down federal funding on stem cell research out of moral concerns? I won't even get into the war... I have wondered how many of the prisoners G.W. aggressively pushed his State Justices to kill were born into families who just weren't ready to take care of a child responsibly??
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:10 AM   #11 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickentribs
Or, the question nobody will answer for me is how as Gov. of Texas do you kill 10x's as many prisoners (120) as the next closet state by way of execution, and have the balls to shut down federal funding on stem cell research out of moral concerns?
You see an insurmountable inconsistency there? I don't, no more than I see one in being pro-choice and anti-death penalty, or pro-choice and pro-death penalty, or any other similar combination. Perhaps you could elaborate.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:16 AM   #12 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Also, I could see people on both sides disagreeing with this bill. Especially due to Lebell's account. I could see people on both sides agreeing with this bill - although it is most difficult for me to see, out of the four possibilities, the pro-choicers supporting this bill.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:52 AM   #13 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
You see an insurmountable inconsistency there? I don't, no more than I see one in being pro-choice and anti-death penalty, or pro-choice and pro-death penalty, or any other similar combination. Perhaps you could elaborate.
The difference is that I don't believe that we should grant politicians and our gov't the authority to kill. It extends unbelievable trust and power to people who are going to make mistakes, and innocent people dying at the hands of our government should be unacceptable. It is hypocritical to have a system that steps outside of it's own laws in the name of said laws. Our government should be setting the example of decorum and logic for people to aspire to, not extracting vengance with a "do as I say, not as I do" sneer to its constituency.

Pro-choice is easier. I don't think government should tell anyone what to do with thier bodies in any medical situation. It's between me and my doctor.

So my reasons aren't based on morality or you subscribing to my idea of sin. It is limiting the powers of the government to protect myself and you. I think my motive seems consistent, don't you?
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 11:38 AM   #14 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
I'm not questioning your motive's consistency; I don't doubt it. What I'm questioning is whether there's an inconsistency in desiring the death penalty and opposing stem cell research.

I don't think there is.
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 12:02 PM   #15 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
I think it depends on the reason for each position. I will say that if somebody were to oppose abortion on moral, religious grounds and at the same time support capital punishment they would be hard pressed to explain how they reconcile the two. I have heard the arguments about the innocence of the unborn baby and "eye for an eye" for the criminals, but those are simplistic and don't hold water in a meaningful debate.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 12:03 PM   #16 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
I'm not questioning your motive's consistency; I don't doubt it. What I'm questioning is whether there's an inconsistency in desiring the death penalty and opposing stem cell research.

I don't think there is.
I would see no inconsistency in this......if the stand is based on personal Ethics/Morals, and not on Christian Dogma. One can have a personal dislike of one issue and not on another. If however, someone claims this based on Biblical teachings, I would tend to consider the results somewhat hypocritical.

This is of course, my personal opinion. I would be more likely to accept the exact opposite.
__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
tecoyah is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 12:12 PM   #17 (permalink)
NCB
Junkie
 
NCB's Avatar
 
Location: Tobacco Road
Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
I would see no inconsistency in this......if the stand is based on personal Ethics/Morals, and not on Christian Dogma. One can have a personal dislike of one issue and not on another. If however, someone claims this based on Biblical teachings, I would tend to consider the results somewhat hypocritical.

This is of course, my personal opinion. I would be more likely to accept the exact opposite.
So essentially what you're saying is that if the beliefs are to be rooted in a personal moral compass (ie, whatever strikes a persons fancy) then coming to such a conclusion is ok, so long as it's not based on the ancient teachings of Christianity.

It's that sort of thinking that has Christians (left and right) scratching their heads. A person's moral/ethical beliefs are not moral or ethical. Ethics and morals are guidelines to be used to modify one's behavior. Personal ethics/morals are not rooting in discipline or behavior modification. Personal ethics/morals are thus a sort of oxymoron
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christine Stewart, Former Minister of the Environment of Canada
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
NCB is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 02:56 PM   #18 (permalink)
Walking is Still Honest
 
FoolThemAll's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
chickentribs: I'm not seeing why one would be hard-pressed to reconcile the two if based on religious beliefs. Why would the argument you mention "not hold water in a serious debate"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tecoyah
I would see no inconsistency in this......if the stand is based on personal Ethics/Morals, and not on Christian Dogma. One can have a personal dislike of one issue and not on another. If however, someone claims this based on Biblical teachings, I would tend to consider the results somewhat hypocritical.
Why?
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.
FoolThemAll is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 03:54 PM   #19 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
chickentribs: I'm not seeing why one would be hard-pressed to reconcile the two if based on religious beliefs. Why would the argument you mention "not hold water in a serious debate"?
As I mentioned above the moral laws of Christianity don't allow for mortal sins to be selectively applied based how deserved the receipent may be. I am the first to surrender my knowledge of King James and New Testament to be shaky at best - but I believe that if you kill an unborn child, you sin. If you kill a convicted criminal, you sin. If you kill a muslim soldier on the other side of the world, even in the name of the USA, you sin. God, right or wrong, does not allow you room to negotiate with His intent. So I guess I don't see how you would kill at all and feel you were being true to your faith.

My moral laws are decided on by me. I know this gives me a lot more wiggle room, but I didn't make your rules. All of this points to the obvious. Our president is responsible for the murder of at least 120 in Texas, and uncounted thousands in the Middle East. He has saved a few dead fetuses from having stem cells removed, in fairness. I don't get how that leaves him Christian in practice.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 07:53 PM   #20 (permalink)
Insane
 
nofnway's Avatar
 
Location: under the freeway bridge
Kinsey made up his research....others make up their own moral laws. People make accusations based on rationalizations.

Killing is not desirable, Thou shall not kill is a translation from its original language that more closely aligned with the notion of thou shall not murder. The death penalty for heinous criminals is not morally equivalent to the termination of innocent unborn children. There is plenty of justified killing in the Bible....it's the killing of innocents so to speak that is wrong.

Considering your own whim to determine your morality as it suits your needs seems fool hardy. To parse a quotation ....."He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master." - Hunter S. Thompson
__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

Last edited by nofnway; 02-26-2005 at 07:56 PM..
nofnway is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 08:34 PM   #21 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofnway
Kinsey made up his research....others make up their own moral laws. People make accusations based on rationalizations.
I hope that you have pretty solid evidence to back up such a statement. Kinsey was a scientist with well documented studies that were published consistantly over the course of his work, along with a number of assistants and his wife who corraberated his findings. To try and discount what many people consider groundbreaking human behaviour studies with a curt lie would be childish and uninteresting.

Quote:
Killing is not desirable, Thou shall not kill is a translation from its original language that more closely aligned with the notion of thou shall not murder. The death penalty for heinous criminals is not morally equivalent to the termination of innocent unborn children. There is plenty of justified killing in the Bible....it's the killing of innocents so to speak that is wrong.
Interesting - I would be curious as to which language you are getting the translation from. I'm a little confused about the difference between Murder and Killing I thought they were the same thing. Who do we need to clear the specifics of a situation with to get the go-ahead on a "justified killing"? As long as we get approval and the right forms filled in we are clear to take another life then? I guess you gave up on the idea that Jesus died on the cross so you and others could be forgiven and absolved of your sins, huh? Because if the criminal we have lined up for a justified killing gets to Jesus before we get to him we would be killing a soul just as innocent as that baby, right? That might not be good.

Granted, the idea of sin-free killing sounds good to me, do you think that God intended his word to be open to negotiation to you for "justified" scenarios? Do you think we could get exclusions for a few other of the mortal sins?

Quote:
Considering your own whim to determine your morality as it suits your needs seems fool hardy. To parse a quotation ....."He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master." - Hunter S. Thompson
Yea, maybe you are right. Maybe I should just decide right from wrong and not let my morals of killing fluctuate based on on who my intended victim is. It may be a bit prideful to think I could sit in judgement of another -- I think God may have mentioned that a some point now that I think of it.

I like the quote, but you don't have to worry about me. I suffer plenty of fools.
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 09:49 PM   #22 (permalink)
Insane
 
nofnway's Avatar
 
Location: under the freeway bridge
"Kinsey's methodology was criticised by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably by Abraham Maslow. Fully 25% of Kinsey's survey group were, or had been, prison inmates, 5% were male prostitutes, and the majority were volunteers. It was claimed that he refused to consider volunteer bias as a confounding factor even when he was warned by prominent research psychologists (note that the reports claim 100% sample rates of small communities), that he provided incomplete demographic data, and that his statistical methods of analysis were inappropriate. " Wikipedia..distills that pretty well.......just topping the pile

Just a brief synopsis from biblestudy.org...pretty much the way I learned it.

The commandment "thou shall not kill" ( Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder," most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use ( Genesis 1:26-30; 9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat animals and the environment ( Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4; Proverbs 12:10). Under the Old Covenant God allowed the Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder ( Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery ( Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and even gave them instructions about waging war ( Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he made provisions for this ( Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).

The primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human are made in the image of God ( Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other human beings was wrong ( Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus 1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder ( Matthew 5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul ( Romans 1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James ( James 2:8-11; 4:1-3), Peter ( 1 Peter 4:15-16) and John ( Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15) that murder is wrong.


We all suffer fools...
__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci
nofnway is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 11:01 PM   #23 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofnway
"Kinsey's methodology was criticised by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably by Abraham Maslow. Fully 25% of Kinsey's survey group were, or had been, prison inmates, 5% were male prostitutes, and the majority were volunteers. It was claimed that he refused to consider volunteer bias as a confounding factor even when he was warned by prominent research psychologists (note that the reports claim 100% sample rates of small communities), that he provided incomplete demographic data, and that his statistical methods of analysis were inappropriate. " Wikipedia..distills that pretty well.......just topping the pile
Well, you had mentioned that Kinsey made up his data, this passage states simply that he was not able to get complete demographic data from subjects that he was interviewing about deviant sexual practices back in the 1950's. Hmm - I wonder why they would be hesitant in giving it him?

It really doesn't matter - I am not sure why you brought him up in the first place in a discussion about capital punishment and abortion...

Quote:
Just a brief synopsis from biblestudy.org...pretty much the way I learned it.

The commandment "thou shall not kill" ( Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder," most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder etc, etc...
Interesting site - I don't know that this one person's interpretation of scripture would be considered peer reviewed and tested. Honestly my goal is not to disrespect your faith, and if you say that killing for the right reason is not a sin between you and your God, then I have to accept that.

I would point out that the above article also stated that it was ok to kill somebody for adultery as well. You concur I assume?

I happened to copy this from biblestudy.org which seems to be opposed to the above though, I would be interested in your take.

Quote:
An Eye for An Eye
or
Lex Tallionis

Jesus quoted it in the sermon on the mount because in His day it had also become misunderstood. People were applying it personally in their every day lives. Jesus said,

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, ‘Do not resist injuries ("evil" in KJV), but whoever strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other as well’" (Matt. 5:38-29 Modern Language Version).

Was Jesus abolishing the government's right to punish evil? The Apostle Paul did not understand Jesus' words this way. In fact in Romans 13:4 Paul states that the governmental authorities are to retaliate against evil and we are to be subject to them and show appropriate respect.

But in the passage (Rom. 12:17-21) which comes before Romans 13, Paul parallels Jesus' words about not avenging ourselves. And where did Paul and Jesus get their principles? Probably from Proverbs 20:22 and 24:29. Here's what it says:

"Do not say, 'I will repay evil'; wait for the LORD and He will save you."

And again,
"Say not, 'As he did to me, so I will do him; I will repay a man according to his deeds.'"

We know that God will repay and He will avenge. "Vengeance is mine" says God. And in the end, what principle will God use to repay?? It is the principle of fairness expressed in the law of retaliation. See Col. 3:25; Matt. 7:2; Luke 6:38; and Psalms 7:16.
.
Vengeance is always dangerous. First it involves wrath, anger and hatred. When these emotions are involved, there will be a tendency to overdo it and retaliate far more than is just. We don't want to be Lamech’s children (Gen. 4:24). We want to be the children of God who forgive 70 times 7!
Anyway, as long as you are happy....
__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.
chickentribs is offline  
Old 02-26-2005, 11:47 PM   #24 (permalink)
Insane
 
nofnway's Avatar
 
Location: under the freeway bridge
someone else brought up kinsey...I merely wished to point out the flaws of relying on it.
In the new testament Jesus says many of our sins can be forgiven if we meet god's conditions of pardon...I believe John Chapter 8 illustrates this.

I really didn't want to turn this into the Bible thread

I am happy...although not perfect
__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci
nofnway is offline  
Old 02-27-2005, 04:50 AM   #25 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Quote:
Originally Posted by nofnway
"Kinsey's methodology was criticised by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably by Abraham Maslow. Fully 25% of Kinsey's survey group were, or had been, prison inmates, 5% were male prostitutes, and the majority were volunteers. It was claimed that he refused to consider volunteer bias as a confounding factor even when he was warned by prominent research psychologists (note that the reports claim 100% sample rates of small communities), that he provided incomplete demographic data, and that his statistical methods of analysis were inappropriate. " Wikipedia..distills that pretty well.......just topping the pile
I read the article on Wikipedia about Kinsey, and nowhere can I find the quoted material. Then I searched for an entire quote from the thing you posted and realized it was from "Kinsey Reports" and it goes on:
Quote:
In a response to these criticisms, Paul Gebhard, Kinsey's successor as director of the Kinsey Institute for Sex Research, spent years "cleaning" the Kinsey data of its purported contaminants, removing, for example, all material derived from prison populations in the basic sample. In 1979, Gebhard (with Alan B. Johnson) published The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulations of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted by the Institute for Sex Research. Their conclusion, to Gebhard's surprise he claimed, was that none of Kinsey's original estimates were significantly affected by this bias.

Professor Martin Duberman writes:

Instead of Kinsey's 37 percent, Gebhard and Johnson came up with 36.4 percent; the 10 percent figure (with prison inmates excluded) came to 9.9 percent for white, college-educated males and 12.7 percent for those with less education. And as for the call for a "random sample," a team of independent statisticians studying Kinsey's procedures had concluded as far back as 1953 that the unique problems inherent in sex research precluded the possibility of obtaining a true random sample, and that Kinsey's interviewing technique had been "extraordinarily skillful." They characterized Kinsey's work overall as "a monumental endeavor."
I think it's a little intellectually dishonest to stop quoting an encyclopedia entry right at the point where it refutes the prevous section.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofnway
We all suffer fools...
And gladly, if I remember correctly. You're okay by me, nofnway.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
 

Tags
agree, bill, finally, liberals, life, pro

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:06 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360