“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Hightstown, NJ

#227793 Mar 22, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>whatever
I take this as admission that you know you act in a very un-Christianlike manner and that you care nothing about it. So feel free to never bring up your religion as a reason why you feel abortion is wrong.

Judged:

53

52

52

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#227795 Mar 22, 2013
Mpnf1979 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sometimes I just feel sorry for her. She must be so filled with anger and hate and jealousy. What else could spark such enraged fits? I've never seen someone have so much animosity for someone they don't even know. WHO CARES enough to put forth that much energy about someone on a Topix thread? lol Poor lady. So sad.
Much of her problem is that she has Bi-Polar Disorder. She tends to visit her when she's manic. I don't know if she takes her meds regularly, or if they need to be regulated.

Regardless, it's no excuse for her behavior.

Judged:

44

43

43

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Doctor REALITY

Little Rock, AR

#227796 Mar 22, 2013
Abortion is EVIL. Abortion is MURDER. Abortion is....OF THE DEVIL.

Judged:

54

53

46

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ignore the trolls”

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

#227797 Mar 22, 2013
Doctor REALITY wrote:
Abortion is EVIL. Abortion is MURDER. Abortion is....OF THE DEVIL.
Perhaps you need a dose of your own name (leaving aside the doctor bit - for you have no medical background and are far too stupid to have ever earned a PhD), for your own planet is not of this world. Btw, how is planet Zog these days? Do you have Lord of the Rings? Perhaps I could quote that to justify any bull I wish to post one here? Try to find out what the word murder means - clue for imbeciles - look in a dictionary.

Judged:

53

53

53

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
moonie

Rockingham, NC

#227798 Mar 22, 2013
Thank you for providing us with your information. Your info will be shared with the Topix administrators.
www.stopcyberbullying.gov
Overcomebullying.org

Judged:

55

55

53

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#227799 Mar 22, 2013
Life is Precious wrote:
<quoted text>You are such a B*TCH!!!
Go to H*LL
LOL!! And no toys from Santa?? LOL!

Judged:

44

44

44

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227801 Mar 22, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you call the Aztec example ignorance? They had just as much evidence to support their beliefs as you have to support yours.
There is no doubt that ignorance played a huge role in the Aztec customs. Many societies still today do not have access to the diverse amount of knowledge that we and most other developed Nations possess, so I doubt that the Aztecs had access to the same amount of knowledge that we do. Note:“Two of the primary architects of the Aztec empire were the half-brothers Tlacaelal and Montezuma I, nephews of Itzcoatl. Moctezuma I succeeded Itzcoatl as Hueyi Tlatoani in 1440. Although he was also offered the opportunity to be tlatoani , Tlacaelel preferred to operate as the power behind the throne. Tlacaelel reformed the Aztec state and religion. According to some sources, he ordered the burning of most of the extant Aztec books claiming that they contained lies. He thereupon rewrote the history of the Aztec people, thus creating a common awareness of history for the Aztecs. This rewriting led directly to the curriculum taught to scholars and promoted the belief that the Aztecs were always a powerful and mythic nation; forgetting forever a possible true history of modest origins. One component of this reform was the institution of ritual war (the flower wars) as a way to have trained warriors, and created the necessity of constant sacrifices to keep the Sun moving.”(Wikipedia)

The Aztec commoners were obviously kept in ignorance and in fear of the dark, but this was common to many religions, and they perceived a sacrifice as a way that would save themselves, rationalizing that if their god desires people to die and somebody else died instead of them, they might continue to live - at least a while longer. In the past it was even a common practice for merchants to go from village to village selling slaves for the purpose of sacrifice. It was noted in one ancient Roman document that a certain seller of slaves for sacrifice complained of having a difficult time selling his “merchandise” whenever he would go through a Christian neighborhood.

Today even the commoner has more ideas and historical data to compare due to the printing press(books), television, radio, internet, etc., which has made a big difference in the way we view the world. Back then most of the information that was known came from those who were in power, and you knew only what they knew, or what they wanted you to know. Much of the world is still like this, and any political powers can be just as subjective. There were what you call “true believers”, but they very often were forced to confess to a certain belief or die, so they usually only believed what they were allowed to believe, or know by the power class.

For much of the world religion was and is also the government, so therefore rule to maintain power like any political government does, but maybe a little more dictatorial. The Aztec people may have thought that their leaders were doing good for them, but we can now see that their ignorance resulted in the suffering of countless people. We don't have that in America to that extreme today with the separation of church and state, but in other areas of the world there is still ignorance and persecution of this magnitude going on. Today in America there is a relatively free exchange of ideas, and easy access to information for virtually everybody, but we are and dangerously moving toward more and more censorship in what we are allowed to know.

Judged:

51

51

50

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227802 Mar 22, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Torquemada just a sadistic bastard looking for any excuse to torture and kill? Or was he a man driven to extremes in his efforts to protect church and country from Evil, while doing his best to save the souls of those deluded enough to err and stray from the "One True Path".
Sure, it is easy now for us to say that xianity is a false religion, so anyone that killed to preserve it was horribly wrong and evil. But the fact remains that Torquemada though that he was doing the best possible thing for those he tortured, since if he could get them to confess and recant their errors, and then immediately kill them so they could not backslide, they would still manage to get into Heaven. Thus, he was keeping them out of an eternity of Hell for the mere price of extreme agony for a few hours or days.
(EDITED FOR SPACE)

What we're really talking about here is politics, and to a politician the end usually justifies the means, and the end is usually to stay in power whether for their own self-interest, or for what they might even perceive as ethical reasons. In my mind it is a politicians job to attempt to achieve the greatest good for the people that they serve , while avoiding at all reasonable cost the infringement on the inherent rights of those people, or for that matter on the inherent rights of any other people. Torquemada's fault was that he used his authority/power to infringe on the the most important inherent right's that a person can have, life. Sometimes just the state of having too much power can drive a person to go too far.

Let's look at this scenario through your skewed version of what discourse might have taken place:

Although Torquemada's goal may have been to do ultimate good, in his mind, by helping Roman Catholicism maintain control of power so he could continue torturing innocent people to save their souls, there is also evidence to suggest that his priority was merely to rid the countryside of non-believers in order to maintain power. His motives are also questionable in this version, for example, if it is best to kill somebody immediately after confessing so that they could not backslide, then that means it would also be in the best interest of every believer to be immediately killed in order to avoid the prospect of them ever backsliding. So in this example he used subjective reasoning, or a double-standard. Based on this logic, it's likely that self-interest was more of a motivation than was his duty to God. Also consider that he would have had to break God's law every time he killed, especially now that they were fellow believers, so it would only have been out of ignorance if he was doing it to please God. No, the people were probably tortured and killed as examples to the rest of the “sheeple”, and to help persuade the other non-believers to leave the Country.

People should be free to think and teach whatever they believe, but that wasn't the case here. What we have here is a marriage of religious/political, fanatical dictators, who, without following any moral guidelines, were willing to by any means possible maintain their power. Forcing somebody to convert at the threat of death is, and has been common throughout the history of politics. Just as an example, it's interesting that even today in China and many other countries as well, Christians among others are forced to denounce their religion/belief or face prison, torture or death. We see that when large corporations have power to do whatever they want to, the result favors the corporations at an ever increasing expense to the common people.(See the example of Apple Corp in China) Power is a corrupting force regardless of whether it is a religious power, a political power, or an individual with power. Guantanamo Bay is a recent case in point which shows that not only the more freedom you give someone to abuse another, but also the longer that they have that power, the more abusive they become.

Judged:

29

29

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227803 Mar 22, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Torquemada just a sadistic bastard looking for any excuse to torture and kill? Or was he a man driven to extremes in his efforts to protect church and country from Evil, while doing his best to save the souls of those deluded enough to err and stray from the "One True Path".
Sure, it is easy now for us to say that xianity is a false religion, so anyone that killed to preserve it was horribly wrong and evil. But the fact remains that Torquemada though that he was doing the best possible thing for those he tortured, since if he could get them to confess and recant their errors, and then immediately kill them so they could not backslide, they would still manage to get into Heaven. Thus, he was keeping them out of an eternity of Hell for the mere price of extreme agony for a few days.
(EDITED FOR SPACE)

What we're really talking about here is politics, and to a politician the end usually justifies the means, and the end is usually to stay in power whether for their own self-interest, or for what they might even perceive as ethical reasons. In my mind it is a politicians job to attempt to achieve the greatest good for the people that they serve , while avoiding at all reasonable cost the infringement on the inherent rights of those people, or for that matter on the inherent rights of any other people. Torquemada's fault was that he used his authority/power to infringe on the the most important inherent right's that a person can have - life. Sometimes just the state of having too much power can drive a person to go too far.

Let's look at this scenario through your skewed version of what discourse might have taken place:
Although Torquemada's goal may have been to do ultimate good, in his mind, by helping Roman Catholicism maintain control of power so he could continue torturing innocent people to save their souls, there is also evidence to suggest that his priority was merely to rid the countryside of non-believers in order to maintain power. In your version of what transpired, his motives are questionable, for example, if it is best to kill somebody immediately after confessing so that they could not backslide, then that means it would also be in the best interest of every believer to be immediately killed in order to avoid the prospect of them ever backsliding. So in this example he used subjective reasoning, or a double-standard. Based on this logic, it's likely that self-interest was more of a motivation than was his duty to God. Also consider that he would have had to break God's law every time he killed, especially now that they were fellow believers, so it would only have been out of ignorance if he was doing it to please God. No, the people were probably tortured and killed as examples to the rest of the “sheeple”, and to help persuade the other non-believers to leave the Country.

People should be free to think and teach whatever they believe, but that wasn't the case here. What we have here is a marriage of religious/political, fanatical dictators, who, without following any moral guidelines, were willing to by any means possible maintain their power. Forcing somebody to convert at the threat of death is, and has been common throughout the history of politics. Just as an example, it's interesting that even today in China and many other countries as well, Christians among others are forced to denounce their religion/belief or face prison, torture or death. We see that when large corporations have power to do whatever they want to, the result favors the corporations at an ever increasing expense of the common people.(See the example of Apple Corp.in China) Power is a corrupting force regardless of whether it is a religious power, a political power, or an individual with power. Guantanamo Bay is a recent case in point which shows that not only the more freedom you give someone to abuse another, but also the longer that they have that power, the more abusive they become.

Judged:

29

29

28

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227804 Mar 22, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no OBJECTIVE standard that proves any reason to deny abortion. Since it IS an objective fact that the majority of fertilized eggs will never survive to reach live birth, any purely objective standard MUST be impartial with regards to both natural (or spontaneous) and artificial abortions.
Objective AND moral is the key. What you are inferring is that what I said is the equivalent of saying that we need to sacrifice unborn children in order to satisfy the “nature god”, but that's not what I said. Rather than helping nature to do it's job, we are actually trying to apply fair standards and ethical equality to all human beings. When you base your standards on the former you're reffering to the idea of eugenics, which coincidentally is also the general philosophy driving the pro-abortion agenda.

Judged:

48

48

48

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227805 Mar 22, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't need to read past your first line to say "EEEEHHHHH. WRONG!"
You expect people to have children simply because the ova and sperm met? What kind of reason is that to bring a child into the world?
It's a child. You completely ignore any logical moral basis of the argument, which is the only reason that there would be an argument in the first place. You believe that the mother can simply kill the preborn child at will, and your reasoning is for the most part because of the “inferiority” of the preborn child.

Judged:

47

46

45

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#227806 Mar 22, 2013
mamma-san wrote:
<quoted text>
Much of her problem is that she has Bi-Polar Disorder. She tends to visit her when she's manic. I don't know if she takes her meds regularly, or if they need to be regulated.
Regardless, it's no excuse for her behavior.
Well, I guess we can take some solace if this is her outlet for her anger and obvious deep-seeded issues. I'd rather her do it on here where it's harmless than lash out at people. She seems very unstable. Her first post is a far cry from the senseless histrionics she posts on here with regularity.

Judged:

62

62

62

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Ignorance is bliss.”

Since: May 11

Westerville, OH

#227807 Mar 22, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a child. You completely ignore any logical moral basis of the argument, which is the only reason that there would be an argument in the first place. You believe that the mother can simply kill the preborn child at will, and your reasoning is for the most part because of the “inferiority” of the preborn child.
A pregnant woman can have the fetus expelled from her uterus because it's her right to do so if she chooses. End of story. And it is also a very moral decision to do so.

Judged:

60

59

59

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Becoming a better me!”

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#227808 Mar 23, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a child. You completely ignore any logical moral basis of the argument, which is the only reason that there would be an argument in the first place. You believe that the mother can simply kill the preborn child at will, and your reasoning is for the most part because of the “inferiority” of the preborn child.
No. It's not the inferiority of the child.

It's knowing that you can not or will not be the parent that born human being deserves, for the rest of it's life.

You continue to only focus on it's existence during it's first nine months, in utero. You continue to ignore the FACT that it must be supported, nurtured, fed, and loved for the next (minimum) 18 years.

You continue to ignore the fact that having a child should be a conscious choice and a decision made with forethought.

It's a CHILD. Not a truck or a bagel. People should be at least as much thought into bringing a child into the world as they do what kind of bagel to buy.

With your logic, nothing matters but that it's a human. That it is a human being is NOT enough reason to do it.

Judged:

56

56

55

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#227810 Mar 23, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a child. You completely ignore any logical moral basis of the argument, which is the only reason that there would be an argument in the first place. You believe that the mother can simply kill the preborn child at will, and your reasoning is for the most part because of the “inferiority” of the preborn child.
Nope, it's a wad of goo that may or may not develop even if it's wanted and cherished. WAD OF GOO. Cells with no sentience or life of its own. And none of YOUR business since it is NOT your uterus, not your body and not your pregnancy.
When it is, then you can make your own decision about it, but that won't change the fact that it is just a wad of goo and potential at that stage, and not a child.

Judged:

56

56

53

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227811 Mar 23, 2013
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>I gotta ask: is this an application for the job of "womb investigator" once President Rand Paul's Department of Wombland Security is established?
The concepts you are espousing have logical consequences in practice. Are you prepared to consider miscarriage a criminal offense? Who is going to determine whether or not the individual cycle of each woman in the country, has not yielded a fertilized ovum each month (or two...would that menstruating woman whose uterus failed to nurture and gestate these fertilized eggs, then be a serial killer?) Will you be regulating each pregnancy, to assure the fetus is free from 'endangerment' by the woman's behavior? Investigating whether or not she is properly restrained, to avoid contact with organisms which may interfere with her pregnancy?
Should the products of conception be assigned social security numbers? Shall the courts recognize their rights to assemble, speak freely, own a firearm?
Where does it end?
No need to worry, ObamaCare's already taken care of all that for you. But seriously, you're talking about the implications of laws, some that would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. But common sense should always prevail.

Laws are put into place as a means for us to shape our communities in a way that is in the best interest of all of its citizens, without infringing on the rights of any individuals. If at any time it is seen that by using the strict letter of that law, it would either cause an individual undo hardship, or infringe on any individuals right, an exception, or alternative can be found that is in accordance with the SPIRIT of the law. In this case laws have to take into consideration the rights of at least two people.

Here's just a few common sense rules that I think should be remembered:

1 - Laws should not be made because they are practical, but because they are the right thing to do.

2 - Generally speaking, until there is a problem that may cause harm to another – in this case the fetus, there is no moral, or valid reason to take away any of a persons rights.

3 - Life is the most important right, because without life there can be no present, or future value in that life, so would make all other rights obsolete.

4 - The good should outweigh the bad, and each individual case should be respectfully measured.

5 - Criminals don't obey laws, but laws can persuade the inherently lawful.

Judged:

52

52

51

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227812 Mar 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there any chance that the mother can survive if the fetus is aborted? Then morality REQUIRES that the fetus be aborted. A potential life NEVER outweighs a realized life.
I read of a case where the mother of two existing children had an illness that could have been treated, but would prove fatal to the fetus if she did. She and her husband decided that she would commit suicide so that the fetus could gestate to term. Soon after giving birth, she died leaving her husband alone with three children, one a newborn.
I consider her a disgusting mother, and neither of them fit to be parents. The choice they made was HIGHLY immoral and based on purely selfish "religious" motives.
<quoted text>
Simple: is the mother pretty much guaranteed to die, either way? Then save the fetus. Any other case, it is just a wad of goo, and is nowhere near equal in value to that of a real live human being.
<quoted text>
I have already said that the soul enters at birth. And the soul can be separated from the body, we call that "death".
<quoted text>
1) From the point of view from my religion, the soul enters the body as a way to learn. Exiting the body ends any possibility for growth and learning.
2) The Bible supports my point on this, that only after the soul enters the body does the body have full worth. Heck, in the Bible, a kid less than 8 days old isn't even counted as a person yet...
<quoted text>
I think that I just did...
<quoted text>
No, it is not just the soul, or just the body, but the UNION of body and soul that has importance. Either alone is, for this discussion, effectively worthless.
Three Part Response

1 - Please support this claim that the Bible says a kid less than eight-days-old isn't counted as a person - or are you talking about a goat? Your views about the worth of a fetus according to the Bible are totally ficticious. Even though it doesn't actually come right out and say that “a fetus is a person”, the Bible gives every indication that a fetus is considered to be a person.

2 - Previously you said that “Given two persons and the chance to save only one, the most moral choice is to save the one with the best chance of survival.” Now your view is that regardless of the prospects for the life of either, unless the mother is guaranteed to die, you would kill the child, knowing that in all probability there will be no FUTURE for either of them. Most of what we do for our children is based on their FUTURE, and if we know at least that their FUTURE does exist, when we are deciding on the actual FUTURES of people it shouldn't make any difference on when that FUTURE is. Even if you believe that a fetus has no value at the present, you should still be able to understand that we don't always base the importance of life on the present moment.

3 - We have two different, but very similar viewpoints:

A. The body and the soul begin as seperate entities, then unite to become a “person” after birth.

B. A sperm and an egg begin as seperate entities, then unite to become a “person” after conception.

You are basing the importance of a human being, at least to a large extent on when you believe that the soul enters the body. Why debate that? It should be obvious to everbody that it's at the moment of conception. I think though since it is only a belief, and with the possibility of many unforeseen variables, we shouldn't place too much importance on that event alone. Until there is any type of proof as to the nature of the soul, and when it enters the body, it can't be logically debated either way in this discussion.

Judged:

51

51

51

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
LightForce

Rockford, MI

#227813 Mar 23, 2013
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
If a human being had the sentience of a 12 day old fetus, then it would indeed be moral to euthanize them, a blessing for all concerned.
As light-hearted and humorous as this might seem, I hope that you are assuming that this would be a permanent state, unlike that of a twelve-day-old, who in all probability would have a valuable and productive life ahead of them.

Judged:

42

41

40

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“I'm here with bells on.”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#227814 Mar 23, 2013
LightForce wrote:
<quoted text>
No need to worry, ObamaCare's already taken care of all that for you. But seriously, you're talking about the implications of laws, some that would be difficult if not impossible to enforce. But common sense should always prevail.
Laws are put into place as a means for us to shape our communities in a way that is in the best interest of all of its citizens, without infringing on the rights of any individuals. If at any time it is seen that by using the strict letter of that law, it would either cause an individual undo hardship, or infringe on any individuals right, an exception, or alternative can be found that is in accordance with the SPIRIT of the law. In this case laws have to take into consideration the rights of at least two people.
Here's just a few common sense rules that I think should be remembered:
1 - Laws should not be made because they are practical, but because they are the right thing to do.
2 - Generally speaking, until there is a problem that may cause harm to another – in this case the fetus, there is no moral, or valid reason to take away any of a persons rights.
3 - Life is the most important right, because without life there can be no present, or future value in that life, so would make all other rights obsolete.
4 - The good should outweigh the bad, and each individual case should be respectfully measured.
5 - Criminals don't obey laws, but laws can persuade the inherently lawful.
Laws establishing 'personhood' for fetuses, will cause great harm to women. Therefore, they will never be passed.

If they couldn't even get it done in Mississippi, don't expect it to fly in Oregon, Vermont, or any other state.

Judged:

52

52

51

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Lumbhia

Colorado Springs, CO

#227815 Mar 23, 2013
M-S baby killer.
She loves killing babies, killing feti, and killing zygotes.

Judged:

22

22

22

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 2 min Stilgar Fifrawi 794,063
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min USA Born 567,510
sexting (guys only) (Jul '12) 15 min tasia 227
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 15 min lil whispers 607,082
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 20 min lovewithin 39,648
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 25 min Rick in Kansas 267,332
avandia 2014 (Jan '14) 35 min graciousaint 253
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 1 hr RiccardoFire 97,439
More from around the web