Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pro-Lifers

  1. Jan 6, 2004 #1
    I'm interested in peoples' thoughts on the pro-life people who murder doctors. I'm just after opinions, thoughts about the different values at work, et cetera.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 6, 2004 #2

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yes, well the interesting thing is the broken symmetry. Pro-choice activists don't murder bishops, at least not yet.

    The religious people do seem to have a more absolutist, manichean view of the world, which can lead in the extreme to killing one's opponents. There is no great religion that has not fallen into this sin, including Buddhism.
     
  4. Jan 9, 2004 #3
    No more contradicting than pro choice people against the death penalty.
     
  5. Jan 9, 2004 #4

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Was that aimed at me? I didn't say anything about contradiction, but since you bring that up...

    The death penalty and abortion are a hard pair of oxen to yoke. Both sides have problems. The late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago tried to link them for Catholic pro-lifers with his Seamless Web teaching. Just as Jesus' robe, at the Crucifixion, had no seams along which it could be divided among the Roman soldiers, so our concern for life should not stop at fetuses but be extended to prisoners on death row as well. This is persuasive, but it's a hard sell to the pro-life community, since the people who are conservative on abortion tend to be conservative on the death penalty (i.e they're for it), too.

    On the pro-choice side, as you say, many who are for the right to abortion are also for abolition of the death penalty. They explain this by the fact that - for them - the fetus is not a person, and the felon is. It is persons, human beings, whose life we should care about. And they deny, sometimes a little desperately, that a fetus is a person.
     
  6. Jan 10, 2004 #5
    Sorry, that wasn't directed at you in anyway :) Just an added thought , since prolife/death and prochoice/antideath tend to come in pairs. Simply, I think both are quite contradicting, but I do understand both sides reasonings.


    :smile:
     
  7. Jan 11, 2004 #6
    if we can not prove that consciousness exists, how can we know when it enters the body.

    accepting age-regression hypnosis, some remember being in the womb and others only remember the birth process. not knowing when the soul incarnates, we must accept the argument that a fetus is a part of the mother until birth. so let's leave the final decision with the mother. whether we officially do or not is impracticle. if the mother wants to abort, there will be an abortion.

    philosophically, i believe this is a delemma being worked out by the three entities involved. the souls of the mother, father and child are jointly working on their relationship and/or either of them needs to work on this issue with the aide of the other two.

    we can not legislate moraliy. each of us must follow our own credo.


    peace,
     
  8. Jan 13, 2004 #7

    nix

    User Avatar

    hmmm...im a bit confused..
    how can they be pro life if they kill life?

    i am opposed to abortion (except in cases like rape and where either the baby or the mother is to die if the baby keeps growing..then it is the choice of the mom)..i think you have to take responsibility for your actions, if you screwed up you screwed up dont punish someone else because of it, also im opposed to the death penalty (can you tell im canadian? lol..) i believe that no one should judge when a person should live or die, especially since sometimes you never really know if the person is guilty..just reasonable doubt..if the person was actually innoncent there is no way you can give them back their life (oops, so sorry i killed you..but i thought you really did it)even if they get a life sentence, they can be freed at any time and at least have the rest of their life to live

    anyways, i would probably be considered prolife, and i would never condone the killing of doctors..
    i think what you mean by prolife is anti-abortion?? is that what your talking about?
     
  9. Jan 27, 2004 #8
    The pro-life people who murder doctors should be shot :smile:.

    I'd have to say I'm pro-death-penalty when there is a murder or a rape involved. If you murder someone you've (generally speaking; it needs to be up to the judge/jurors discression) given up your own right to life. If, for whatever reason, the judge/juror find you guilty of murder but not deserving of the death penalty, they should bestow upon you whatever punishment they see fit, but not life in prison. Tax-payer money does not need to go to feeding and housing murderers; if they deserve to live they deserve to live free anyway, after they have served their punishment (of FINITE time). Also, self-defence is most certainly not murder.

    If you rape someone... I've no patience or toleration for those people. Frankly they would be shot in the knee-caps, castrated, and drowned if it was up to me- but our justice system won't allow that so I'll go with a normal death penalty. Under no circumstances should a rapist be left alive- murder is sometimes more acceptable than other times (EG murdering someone who's committed some grave insult towards you or your kin), but rape has no excuse. Ever.


    And abortion... What's wrong with "killing" an undeveloped "creature"? Even if it has consciousness, it has no more intelligence than the animals we kill for food- so if it has consciousness there's no reason to think they don't. If it's okay to kill them... And some things (EG the morning-after pill) abort when all that exists is a several-celled creature- not even a brain yet. If we can kill ants without a thought, why not a several-celled creature with NO brain at all? Oh, it has a string of molecules in it that are also in you :S? I don't see the difference... Before the baby is borne it is, as someone said, part of the mother. No one else has any right to say what can be done to it.


    Hopefully you aren't going to chase me down with pitchforks and torches now... Hehe.
     
  10. Jan 28, 2004 #9

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Most pro-life people don't kill doctors. Seriously, I'm pretty sure most don't even approve of it. I do find it a bit distressing that they don't more actively distance themselves from the nuts. I don't just mean the nuts who pull the trigger, but also the ones who do the research to find out doctors identities, addresses and habits, then post them on the net. While there are very few who pull the trigger, there are a disturbingly large number who walk the line to commiting accessory to murder.

    Njorl
     
  11. Jan 28, 2004 #10
    well, i'm split on both matters myself. I say that even an unborn child is a life nonetheless, and therefore shouldn't be killed unless absolutely necessary. Same with the death penalty, unless there are extreme cirucumstances warrenting it then i'm very much against it. but, i have a side to my person that is very economical, and it makes no sense to be having more unwanted children in this world, or to have tax payers pouring money into the living expenses of convicted felons... i tend to take the pro life stance in most cases anyways, but i can't but help think of how society would benifit would it be otherwise.

    another issue, along the same lines is doctor assisted suicide, and on the same note, people who seek to murder those doctors. i personally, though now that i think of it, it seems a bit odd, but i side with the suiciders. To me life is a precious and valuable thing, hence my customary pro life stance, however, if the quality of life is so poor, i can't find a reason that a man must keep living if he choses that he'd rather not. even my economical side says that a man so unhappy that he choses to take his life, will not be any large benifit to society. either way though, perhaps another issue for discussion.
     
  12. Jan 29, 2004 #11
    Damn right we can legislate morality. And we should!

    Carjacking is immoral. It is against the law, as it should be.
    Rape is immoral. It is against the law, as it should be.
    Blowing up buildings with people in them is immoral. It is against the law, as it should be.
    Armed robbery is immoral. It is against the law, as it should be.

    Are you honestly suggesting that carjackers, rapists, terrorists, and muggers should not be legislated against, simply because their own credos place their own desires above the lives of others?

    And, by the way, murder is immoral. It is against the law, as it should be.

    I would guess that people who commit murder -- whether in the name of their religious beliefs or simply out of greed or anger -- are not thinking rationally, but are rather taken over by emotion.
     
  13. Feb 12, 2004 #12
    This thread is probably long since ignored by now, but I have to respond to sikz's comment.

    Well, I think the big problem with that line of reasoning is that you neglect the potential of that pre-human group of cells. I might assume you don't have children? A little baby of your own could easily change your stance. I once held your view, then everything changed...
     
  14. Apr 14, 2004 #13
    Killing an "undeveloped creature"? Ive seen premies at like 5 mos live. Are you going to call them an "undevelloped" creature. So are you for killing "regular" people also? Do we have no more intelligence than the animals we eat? When do you make the seperation between developed and undeveloped? Last I checked, we cant draw the line between alive and not. Im not taking a punch at anyone, im just very curious on how people can think this.
     
  15. Apr 14, 2004 #14
    I have said this before and this applies to "Pro Lifers"

    It comes down to the question, do we have morals to be morally more good? or just set them up for our own self interest for the moment?

    Human life should have the same dignity and respect from conception until natural death. This should be a universal law, not a whim for the choosing.
     
  16. Apr 14, 2004 #15
    if and until, the right to lifers agree to adopt all the unwanted babies of the world, we can not consider the issue.

    this is a personal choice of the mother, father and unborn. it is not societies concern what life lesson they are addressing.

    how would you like to have the government establish a state church and require that you join and worship their god??? you are asking the couple in question to accept your belief, it may not be what they accept as moral.

    this might be the very issue that has them examine their beliefs and get closer to their god.

    from a society view point, we not only limit the number of unwanted babies but we also save the lives of many, many girls that would seek illegal, unsafe solutions. regardless of what anyone prefers, these procedures will be done and if illegal, line the pockets of criminals.

    we can not legislate morality. we can only educate and improve conditions so that a child is not a burden to the new parents.

    peace,
     
  17. Apr 14, 2004 #16
    Pro Lifers are actively mentally ill. They project their religious beliefs as law onto others, in some cases taking life, in order to spare it. Pro lifers delusionally feel they have a personal relationship with a God that needs them to act out voyeuristically, in the protection of life. Pro lifers are biblical literalists, that believe, their angry, jealous God, is going to punish society as a whole if they don't act out against sinners. They feel they will be spared punishment, if they will only convincingly be God's best little sycophants. I can't imagine what their root motivations must be, I can't even imagine what their bedside prayers must be, especially those that take up weapons and go with their imaginary God's sanction, to kill. If you told a Psychiatrist that you felt an intimate connection to the unborn foetus of every stranger, that you felt protective, and that you wanted to have access to medical records of every pregnacy in the nation, in order to protect these foetuses better than their own mothers would; what would that diagnosis be? It has to be some sort of misplaced Meunchausens Syndrome. The attention the prolifer voyeurs expect is, from God himself. I would laugh myself silly over this, if it weren't how some laws get made, in this nation.

    Regardless of any claims to the contrary, the Pro Life movement, is about self preservation, hatred, and control.

    We live in a nation with a Constitution that guarantees us freedom to practice religion. I look at the middle east and the hateful human practices that spring from that area in general, and the ancient laws and beliefs that governed those ancients, should have no play in how we live as a society today.

    If we were really pro life, we would act that way as a society, but we certainly do not. A recent example would be the math in regards to 9/11. Three thousand some odd, citizens died on that day, and more than ten thousand uninvolved Iraqis have now "died", because our"pro life government", is suddenly passionate about "democracy". 600 Iraqis died in Najaf last week, because our "pro life" government, hires mercenary killers, that were short on sense, and were tooling about in humvees, for reasons unknown, and got them selves killed. These hired killers are paid 15, 000 dollars a month, by our government, while Guardsmen and Women, go short on water, and rations, and armor; while their families can't make ends meet at home, and while they cut the medical benefits for veterans.

    "Pro life" is a convenient pose that this government takes, in order to garner the Whacko religious right vote. Terrorist acts the Pro Lifers are involved in, just fuel the fires of terror in this nation, helping with the cause of empire building; that currently seems to be the cause of all foreign policy. Even pro life can be read as a tool of the empire builders, Orrin Hatch once said, that if women had unlimited access to abortion, then we would have a hard time raising armies. He really said that.

    The physical form is mortal. If "God" wanted it some other way, it would be, some other way. In blind studies conducted among married women, four out of five, conceptions fail of natural causes. Natural causes=God, God kills four out of five foetuses in the first two weeks of pregnacy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2004
  18. Apr 14, 2004 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Don't you see the contradiction inherrent in applying science to part of the issue, but not the whole issue or picking and choosing where to apply science?

    The church does that a lot - do you think if Galileo had discovered the sun orbits the earth he would have been persecuted?

    Most people don't even know it, but the Catholic church's stance on abortion (life begins at conception) is only a few hunderd years old. The reason most people don't know it, of course, is that the Catholic Church is dishonest about it: http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp
    Well, that's nice, but what exactly is "abortion" and when does the fetus acquire a soul? The implied constancy of their opinion is a pleasant fiction: http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/body/religion_and_abortion_3.html
    I think I have good reason to question what the Catholic Church says about abortion.

    edit: in re-reading this, it may be too religious of an issue for here...
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2004
  19. Apr 20, 2004 #18

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    I don't see why this has to be a religious issue. It seems a little arbitrary to grant personhood upon birth. The only difference between a child just born and one about to born is that one breathes air and the other does not.
     
  20. Apr 22, 2004 #19
    When I studied Sikhism, it was said that in a woman's pregnacy there was a 120th day celebration. They believe that the spirit takes residence in the unborn at the 120th day. Prior to that time, it was not celebrated. There are those that set the "life" issue back a bit.
     
  21. Apr 23, 2004 #20
    that is what YOU believe. not everyone has the same view.

    in fact, i believe that the 3 individuals involved make the decision with the mother holding an ultimate, final vote.

    it is and always should be, a private, individual decision.

    love & peace,
    olde drunk
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Pro-Lifers
  1. The weird turn pro (Replies: 6)

Loading...