Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: Peter Ahlstrom on September 23, 2004, 10:08:20 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/national/23CND-SCHI.html?pagewanted=1
"If the Legislature with the assent of the governor can do what was attempted here, the judicial branch would be subordinated to the final directive of the other branches," the court wrote. "Vested rights could be stripped away based on popular clamor."
Hm...I think the judicial branch today has far too much power to reverse any decision the other branches make. What can the other branches do to reverse judicial decisions? Nothing at all, except for constitutional amendments. Oh, they can impeach judges too, but when was the last time that happened?
If the Legislative AND Executive branches agree on something, shouldn't they be able to overturn judicial decision?
-
The same thing happened here in Massachusetts, when the judiciary *ordered* the legislative to make a law legalizing gay marriage. That's not really constitutional, is it, for a court to order a law to be made? Yet they've been scrambling here to try to fix the laws, make a compromise, and when that didn't go through, you know what happened.
At the same time, though, in this particular issue, was the governor overstepping his bounds by making a law that may have been unconstitutional? I don't know the case well enough to say, and right-to-die issues are a tender subject.
-
If the Legislative AND Executive branches agree on something, shouldn't they be able to overturn judicial decision?
The problem is that the Constitution lays out the judicial system on the assumption that it is non-partisan. Technically, since the positions are appointed, and since the Supreme Courts and District Courts are groups of judges rather single judges, partisan politics shouldn't make their way into decisions. Of course, it doesn't work perfectly.
Generally, though, I don't think that judicial legislation is as big a problem as a lot of other people do. Cases like those mentioned will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, and that body is still surprisingly balanced: three on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right.
-
Yet it was the Supreme Court that declared abortion legal.
-
That particular case has very little to do with judicial legislation. They didn't declare abortion legal. They declared that the law against it was unconstitutional.
-
I personally don't see much difference between that and the thing that brought on this thread, where a law was declared unconstitutional in Florida. Except that overturning a law against abortion is a much greater miscarriage of justice.
I haven't seriously read up on the reasoning that the Supreme Court used to determine that abortion was constitutional, but the 5th amendment seems to say that no person can be deprived of life without due process of law.
If this country's people have not supported a constitutional amendment specifically banning abortion, it seems to me to indicate that the majority of the citizens are evil.
-
And it seems to me that this is a bit heavy for the forum.
-
If not the rant forum, where?
-
Ookla, why do you say that people are evil because they dont make an amendment banning abortion? It seems to me that in many situations it would be better for babies not to be born. Abusive households, poverty etc.
-
So if there's a child in an abusive household, or their family doesn't have enough money, we should have mercy on them and kill them?
-
In some cases it is better than what they would go through otherwise.
-
I'm shocked you thought I was asking that question seriously.
If you think killing people in order to save them from misfortune is a good thing, you're entitled to that opinion, but I'd have to say you're evil.
I support the death penalty for people who commit violent crimes, but I don't support the death penalty for innocent children who have commited no crime.
It's ridiculous to assume we know how happy someone's life is going to be in the long run or even the short run.
If parents are not able to care for their children, they should give them to someone who is able.
Abortion is a way to avoid responsibility for mistakes by pretending the mistakes never happened. Perhaps instead of merely killing babies before they are born (or after, as you say would be fine), the irresponsible people who get pregnant or who impregnate others without being able to care for the issuance of such a pregnancy should also have their lives terminated? That way at least the person being punished would be being punished for something THEY did, instead of for something someone else did.
-
First of all, I didnt say that we should honestly do that, but I did say that it would be better for SOME.
If you think killing people in order to save them from misfortune is a good thing, you're entitled to that opinion, but I'd have to say you're evil.
Don't worry, you arent the first to call me evil. I might be, I really dont know, I am pretty weird in my values system I suppose. Killing someone if you know the road they would travel is worse than death would probably be considered evil by many. But you can't say that it couldnt save someone from a lifetime of misfortunes and pain.
It's ridiculous to assume we know how happy someone's life is going to be in the long run or even the short run.
You don't think that if the father is abusive we can predict how happy that child is going to be for the short term?
If parents are not able to care for their children, they should give them to someone who is able.
True, but how realistic is it that a parent who doesnt care enough to keep the child for themselves is going to work hard enough to find a loving environment for their child? It might happen, but it is far more likely that the baby would end up somewhere worse.
I support the death penalty for people who commit violent crimes, but I don't support the death penalty for innocent children who have commited no crime.
Don't forget that everybody dies. Everyone will die someday, it is just a matter of how. Therefore, all you would be doing if you killed them before they were fully born would be depriving them of the life they live. If that life is full of pain, strife, and hardship, then it was an act of mercy to keep them from that.
-
That's exactly what Satan's plan was before the world was created, to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship. But that's what life IS. A life with no pain, strife, and hardship isn't much of a life at all! That's the stuff that makes us grow and progress as a person. Someone who just has their life handed to them on a platter isn't going to ever grow up.
You say if a father is abusive, save the kid by killing him. I say that's unfairly punishing the kid; punish the person who committed the crime, not the victim. It's far more likely the baby would end up somewhere worse? There are plenty of families today who are trying to adopt kids. However, I do think that not enough attention is given toward teaching parents how to be parents in this society.
But just as abortion is treating the symptom rather than the disease, so is adoption. Unmarried people/people who can't afford children should stop having sex.
-
Please don't quote the Bible, as I cant follow that well, not having read it. I was referring to a balance abnormally tilted toward negative feelings by the way. I understand very well the concept of balance, I agree that much of life is pain, and without pain we couldnt really know happiness. But some peope do not see as much of the positive as the negative. Some of these people would end up killing themselves anyway. Some wouldnt out of fear or doubt, but would lead a less than fulfilling life, because of the problems they experienced for the early parts of their life.
I say that to kill the child is not a punishment, but an act of mercy. Like I said, they would die someday anyway, killing them early just protects them the painful life that they would live. If a warm, safe home can be found for them, that is awesome. If not, it would be better for them to die early and not have to spend so much time crying. Yes you might deprive them of happiness, you probably will, but the question is, will you protect them from more than you deprive them of? In most, or at least many, cases that abortions take place, I would say yes.
-
I didn't quote the Bible. But if I had, that would be my prerogative. Evil does not exist if religion doesn't exist, and I was the one who brought up evil in the first place.
In your last post you basically just repeated stuff you said before, so I'll just repeat what I said before: We have to way to judge whether or not someone's life will be happy. Many very happy and successful people had horrible home lives. If we try to make that judgment, we're playing God, and we're woefully underqualified.
-
I say that to kill the child is not a punishment, but an act of mercy.
So basically, you're saying that, because I was born in an abusive family (which truly I was, but I won't get into the details), I would have been better off killed.
I take high exception to that. True, many children of abuse grow to repeat the cycle of abuse. But just as many of us recognize the evil in the previous generation's choices and *choose* to live a different life. Would you deny me that choice? I certainly wouldn't. I have a great life, and am extremely happy. I have gone through many rough times to get where I am, but I would not give up the experiences I've had--nor my family, imperfect as they are--simply because I went through a painful childhood and early adulthood.
As Ookla said, pain is a part of life. Many people see more of it than some. Some people carry hidden burdens that you may never guess they were carrying. A better way of dealing with pain, I think, would be to help carry those burdens.
-
I thought we had decided not to discuss politics in depth on this board due to the fights it has caused...
-
But if I had, that would be my prerogative.
Yes that would be, but I was asking for a favor. You didnt directly quote, but you made a reference that I couldnt follow, so I would prefer if you wouldn't. I was not making a statement against religion.
Next, Stacer, I apologize. First of all I was not clear with my point. My point was not that people should go around killing people that they think would be better off dead. My point is that I do not think that we should take the choice to have an abortion out of the hands of parents who know that their child will not be treated with the care that any baby should. If the parents know that the child is going to end up abused or worse, they should have the option of not having the baby. That was my point. Second of all, I did not mean that people that had rough childhoods could not lead happy lives. I was saying that many do not, and I hope you will agree with me there.
-
I thought we had decided not to discuss politics in depth on this board due to the fights it has caused...
Hence the post earlier that maybe this is not a good place for this.
I am staying out of this, possibly in another solar system.
-
I thought we had decided not to discuss politics in depth on this board due to the fights it has caused...
Well, I wasn't part of this agreement. So...is this a forum rule? No...um...politics? (What is the definition of politics you're using? I guess the initial thrust of the thread is politics, but I would not call abortion politics.)
Yes that would be, but I was asking for a favor. You didnt directly quote, but you made a reference that I couldnt follow, so I would prefer if you wouldn't.
Um, I don't understand what you're saying. I made a reference to something you couldn't follow? It doesn't matter. I wasn't relying on external reference to prove any point. Only the words I actually wrote in my post were what mattered. If you choose not to try to understand them for what they are, that's up to you.
Asking me to divorce what I say from my religious beliefs is asking something impossible. If I don't address something from the perspective of what I believe, where would I address it from? I have no patience for pointless debate for the sake of debate such as is practiced in high school debate clubs. If I say something it's going to be because it's what I believe (at least at the moment).
Anyway, in my post where I said people were evil, what I really should have said was that they were choosing something evil. I guess that's a meaningful distinction that should be made. People are not inherently evil or good. (What people inherently are are seekers after quick gratification.) It's choices that are evil or good, it's lifestyles that are evil or good, it's philosophies that are evil or good. So...I am sorry I said you were evil as well. I think your opinions on this one issue are severely misguided, but I am not in a position to judge you on any grander scale, and nor do I wish to or pretend to be.
I posted this thread as a rant. I'm not going to convince you to change your mind, and you're certainly not going to change mine.
-
That's exactly what Satan's plan was before the world was created, to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship.
I don't know what you are talking about here. What was his plan exactly?
I am not asking you to separate religion from your arguments, in any way. You lost me there so I thought it would be easier if we avoided allusions to events that I am unaware of. If you want to that is fine, but please explain yourself more thoroughly.
Not everyone is looking for a quick thrill. Many people plan for a better future for themselves, saving for their own, long term, well being. If a thrill has no consequences then not many will turn it down, but that is to be expected.
-
THere is no rules against "politics." The rule was about the whole Iraq war thing, because it was making everyone very hard to get along with. If other subjects go that route, they'll be banned too. So far, I don't see that happening here.
Without going too deep into my position, Archon, your biggest problem is that you assume that abortion is the only way to prevent a child from being raised by parents who don't care for him/her, which is ridiculous. Adoption is a common and readily available means of making sure children are cared for by loving parents. While you may hear horror stories about kids who bounce from home to home, that is extremely rare. I actually had a friend in HS who was probably better adjusted than I am, and he lived in many foster homes. Statistically, those children who are not adopted are older children. Babies are typically adopted before they're even born.
Your argument about everyone dying doesn't make sense. It isn't appropriate to kill just anyone, right? You've already said that. So obviously the fact that everyone dies is not an argument that demonstrates the merciful nature of killing someone to prevent a painful life. Much better to give that person a choice about the life they want to lead.
-
So obviously the fact that everyone dies is not an argument that demonstrates the merciful nature of killing someone to prevent a painful life.
I said that everybody is going to die someday anyway. What I wanted Ookla to realize that death should not be something that everyone is afraid of even mentioning. Death is regarded with a sort of negative reverence, as being the very worst thing that could happen to someone. I dont think that it should be portrayed as the most terrible thing that could happen. If people see that there are things worse, then they would be more willing to consider the possibility of abortion being humane.
Archon, your biggest problem is that you assume that abortion is the only way to prevent a child from being raised by parents who don't care for him/her, which is ridiculous.
No. I believe that the parents should not be barred from the choice. If they are not ready to have a child, and do not want to have to carry the pregnancy through, and then give the infant up, I believe that they should be allowed to have an abortion. I believe that it should be AN option not THE option.
-
so... preserving someone's choice (the person who made a choice and is now seeing the consequences of that choice) is more important than preserving someone's life? That makes zero sense.
You make a choice, you have consequences. When you drink, you have to accept the consequences that losing full control of your body and emotions will bring. Because that's what happens. When you have sex, you have to realize that, even when using protection, one of the consequences may be pregnancy. Those people MADE their choice. Ending an infant's life is, in my mind, FAR beyond the scope of choice that anyone should have in order to escape the consequences of that choice.
-
I think Im going to have to agree with you Stacer
Hence the post earlier that maybe this is not a good place for this.
I am staying out of this, possibly in another solar system.
-
When you have sex, you have to realize that, even when using protection, one of the consequences may be pregnancy. Those people MADE their choice. Ending an infant's life is, in my mind, FAR beyond the scope of choice that anyone should have in order to escape the consequences of that choice.
Very good way of putting things, SE.
-
so... preserving someone's choice (the person who made a choice and is now seeing the consequences of that choice) is more important than preserving someone's life? That makes zero sense.
How then do you justify the wars we fought to preserve the freedoms and the choices that we have today?
-
hat's exactly what Satan's plan was before the world was created, to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship.
I don't know what you are talking about here. What was his plan exactly?
Oh. I guess the syntax is tripping you up.
Saving us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship was Satan's plan. Satan's plan was to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship.
What I didn't say was that he planned to do this by not giving us free will, but that isn't relevant unless you were actually asking how Satan planned to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship.
-
That was my question, I was asking for you to go more in depth, so I would know the situation and would be able to form an opinion as to the morality or immorality of it.
-
How then do you justify the wars we fought to preserve the freedoms and the choices that we have today?
Those people went voluntarily. They were adults making choices. What I'm talking about is killing someone else not to defend a greater collection of people having choices, but killing another person so that YOU, just ONE person, can selfishly preserve their own choice. In war (at least ones that justifiably are to preserve freedoms), you have one faction imposing an entire systems of restrictions on another. In abortion, you have one person avoiding the consequences of choices already made. The two are hardly comparable.
-
Those people went voluntarily.
Not necessarily, in many past wars military service was compulsory.
What I'm talking about is killing someone else not to defend a greater collection of people having choices, but killing another person so that YOU, just ONE person, can selfishly preserve their own choice.
So SE if someone owned just one slave and the slave killed the master would that be an unjust act? After all, they did selfishly kill a person just so that they, one person, could live a life by their choice and not have something that got in between them and that.
-
Ok, enough strawman arguments. Your proposed scenarios don't even apply.
As for compulsory military service, we can get into a long debate, but sufficeth me to say that if the war is not a decision of the people, at least as decided through their duly elected representatives, than it is probably not a war for freedom, which is the only type of war that applied to your earlier argument.
As for the slave/master argument, you're overlooking the externally imposed restriction on freedom that I mentioned before. Yes, I stressed numbers, but I also talked about external and internal sources of the restriction of freedom. In the case of pregnancy, it was the decision of the pregnant person that caused the restriction of freedom. In the case of a slave/master, the master has imposed the restriction.
Please stop coming up with this silly examples that don't reflect my actual position in anyway.
-
No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death. How can you make such a guarantee? And, if you can't why even bother defending this worthless arguement?
-
you know, there's a reason that the pro-life supporters in this country primarily argue about the loss of a life and that hte pro-choice supportors never bring it up. It's because, as a whole, this country believes that taking a life is firmly in the "bad things" category. There are extreme exceptions: warfare, self-defense, and... that's about it. Very few pro-choicers will actually admit that they're talking about a human life they get to choose about. They center their arguments around responsibility (primarily how they're too irresponsible to choose to raise a kid) and about the virtues of freedom, but they never, when actually trying to convince pro-lifers or undecideds the justness of their cause, say that killing a helpless child is the cost of their freedom. Because as human beings, we find that a really sick and twisted point of view.
If you want to justify abortion, you should probably be arguing about whether the fetus is an actual human being or not. You'll not win any converts with your current line of argument.
-
Ok, what about in the case of rape? Should a woman be forced to carry a baby that she never wanted nor voluntarily made? That doesnt make sense, it wasnt her choice. What about the woman who wnated to raise a baby with her husband but he dies or leaves for some reason? There are so many situations like this that would justify abortion. If we restrict it, who will decide who can and can not have an abortion? No person is without prejudice, so nobody can be trusted to regulate abortion fairly. Therefore it should be free to any woman.
-
In both of those cases you are looking at abortion as merely an elective medical procedure: if it is inconvenient to have the baby, then we might as well abort.
What about the woman who wnated to raise a baby with her husband but he dies or leaves for some reason?
To turn it back around: what if that father died the day after the child was born? The mother, now single, will have to support that baby -- be both a mother and father -- a nurturer and bread-winner. Should she have the right to kill it then?
Archon, your arguments make no sense.
-
That is different, she has already gone through the pregnancy and can not be prevented from having the baby. She is already going to have to bear the psychological strain of having to give up the baby, it is just a matter of how. The pregnancy is already over therefore she would gain nothing from killing the baby. When a baby is aborted it is much easier to get over it and continue on with your life than if you were to go through the pregnancy and then give up the baby.
Archon, your arguments make no sense.
Please stop attacking my arguments. This was not constructive so could we keep to the debate please?
-
Please stop attacking my arguments. This was not constructive so could we keep to the debate please?
you misunderstand what debate is. you challenge arguments, not he person in a debate. Would you prefer it that we say YOU make no sense?
in rape, yes, I think that abortion is an option.
In the father dying, that's a possibility at any time. That hardly seems worth ending ANOTHER person's life to get over. She chose to bring a life into this world, that's NEVER easy. why should her grief allow her to kill?
I think you vastly underestimate the difficulty in dealing with an abortion, even one you chose. It is not an easy thing. Maybe a 1 day old baby is easier, but I can't think that it's much.
To be honest, the cheapness with which you hold human life frightens me.
-
When a baby is aborted it is much easier to get over it and continue on with your life than if you were to go through the pregnancy and then give up the baby.
Who told you that?
Actually, women who abort carry psychological scars throughout their lives, and abortion is just as traumatic as giving up the baby, just in a different way.
-
I know that it is traumatic stacer, but I have a hard time believing that you wouldnt have a harder time giving up a child after you actually gave birth, and held the baby in your arms, you actually could see it and touch it.
What I meant by the father dying is that she might not be able to support herself without his help, through no fault of her own she is left in a very hard situation. Grief is also a factor, if she had visions of starting a nice warm fuzzy family with him, and then he was gone, she might give up on the dream. She might decide that without him she can never have what she wanted by having this baby. Circumstances change and sometimes it isnt the mothers fault that she made a decision that she later regrets.
SE, I asked him to stop calling my arguments ridiculous because it doesnt contribute to his point. If you want to prove me wrong use reason, dont make statements which are solely opinion. I know he backed it up, I just feel that it was a superfluous part of his text, and nobody gained anything from it.
SE about the cheapness of life, I just have a different viewpoint on death than you do, and I think that that might be a topic for another thread if you want to discuss it.
-
Guys, I'm going to have to come down with Archon on this one. SE, HoM, you're dismissing what I see as valid arguments on his part when you say things like:
Ok, enough strawman arguments. Your proposed scenarios don't even apply.
And
No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon,
And
Because as human beings, we find that a really sick and twisted point of view.
As an outside observer who agrees with you two, I think you're both being too reactionary, and aren't giving enough respect to the person you're arguing with. Please take time to respond to their arguments, rather than dismissing them as foolishness and calling them names.
So SE if someone owned just one slave and the slave killed the master would that be an unjust act? After all, they did selfishly kill a person just so that they, one person, could live a life by their choice and not have something that got in between them and that.
This is an interesting example, Archon, and one I think will make many Christians uncomfortable. Because, as I understand the doctrine, the slave is NOT justified in killing their master. If the laws of the land say that slavery is legal, and those laws treat the slave with at least a small measure of protection and dignity, the slave is morally bound by Christianity to uphold the law. (My reference for this is the story in the New Testament where Peter sends a runaway slave back to his master. LDS people can also note the comment in the D&C about not interfering with the laws of a land that legalizes slavery.)
In addition, I have encountered the 'choice' argument NOT from a 'fetuses aren't children' viewpoint a lot, SE, and I find it simplistic of you to dismiss it. This is a common argument made by the pro-choice side. I find it specious. However, the pro-life side ALWAYS tries to bring it back to the 'fetus is a baby' argument and the pro-choice side ALWAYS tries to bring it back to the 'mothers rights' argument. To claim that Archon should abandon this argument is fine, but do understand that he's not just coming up with it out of nowhere. It is an established and valid tenet of his side.
-
No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death. How can you make such a guarantee? And, if you can't why even bother defending this worthless arguement?
Ah, what I'm gathering from this, is that Archon believes life is terrible, and death is good.
I haven't yet had any experience with someone close to me dying, but I hope that when I do my beliefs that death is only a step in our continued existence will keep me from being devastated over it. However, even though I believe our spirits live on, I think it's wrong to have a cavalier attitude about life. Life is a sacred gift from God and we should cherish it and try to make the best out of it, and offer that same opportunity to all.
There's a story I read in a science fiction book or magazine about a future where parents can perform postnatal abortions whenever they want. In this story, until someone is able to do algebra, they are not considered human beings. The story revolved around an adult demanding the abortion van take him away, claiming that he couldn't do algebra. I don't remember how the story ended, but it was interesting. It seemed a very natural outcome of a slippery slope to me.
-
as I understand the doctrine, the slave is NOT justified in killing their master. If the laws of the land say that slavery is legal, and those laws treat the slave with at least a small measure of protection and dignity, the slave is morally bound by Christianity to uphold the law. (My reference for this is the story in the New Testament where Peter sends a runaway slave back to his master. LDS people can also note the comment in the D&C about not interfering with the laws of a land that legalizes slavery.)
It's an interesting question: To what extent are you supposed to honor and sustain the law, if the laws are unjust?
I don't have a huge understanding of slavery in Roman times, but I seem to remember hearing that it wasn't necessarily hereditary or permanent. What was the case of the particular slave Paul was addressing? Was he more like an indentured servant who could eventually earn his freedom? Perhaps he was a slave through some obligation he himself incurred, and running away was trying to avoid responsibility for his own actions.
Even today we have lots of people who have their rights taken away quite legally because of their own actions. Some of them make license plates.
In any case, if a slave kills his owner...that's a very individual thing. Was it in self defense? Was it after physical and emotional abuse? Was it just because he felt like it one day? Was it in anger? Was it while scared for his own life?
In the US's history there were plenty of slaves who attained freedom without killing their masters. Running away is usually an option. In the Book of Mormon the people of Limhi and the people of Alma both escaped slavery without killing their masters, and their enslavement was just fine according to the laws and rulers of the lands they were in. As for when running away is NOT an option, I'm not the judge of that; God is.
I think there are plenty situations where you can justifiably fight against unjust laws even if you are only really trying to save your own skin or your family's at the moment it comes down to it. But again, I'm not the judge.
-
I don't have a huge understanding of slavery in Roman times, but I seem to remember hearing that it wasn't necessarily hereditary or permanent. What was the case of the particular slave Paul was addressing? Was he more like an indentured servant who could eventually earn his freedom? Perhaps he was a slave through some obligation he himself incurred, and running away was trying to avoid responsibility for his own actions
Roman law was inconsistent on slavery. Slaves were considered property; they had no rights and were subject to their owners' whims. However, they had legal standing as witnesses in courtroom proceedings, and they could eventually gain freedom and citizenship. Masters often freed loyal slaves in gratitude for their faithful service, but slaves could also save money to purchase their freedom. Conditions for slaves in Rome gradually improved, although slaves were treated cruelly in the countryside.
So, in Rome, if a slave killed his master in Rome legally he would be punished,... even if it was self defense, just like a slave in the US before 1861-5 would have been hung... legally for killing their master. Both cultures would have also considered it a moral duty as well, even though a few might have objected.
-
As an outside observer who agrees with you two, I think you're both being too reactionary, and aren't giving enough respect to the person you're arguing with. Please take time to respond to their arguments, rather than dismissing them as foolishness and calling them names.
Actually, my response is a frustration coming from the fact that he seems to be trying to find exceptions to my criteria that aren't exceptions at all. If you're going to argue about something by giving a case, don't provide a case that's already been excluded. You can argue about the criteria of exclusion, but bringing up another example that meets the criteria I've established while trying to say it's a different because is a waste of time. More so than saying that said argument is ridiculous. Yes, saying the argument is a waste of time doesn't disprove the argument, but it does ask the person presenting it to come up with something that moves on.
Sure, Archon, I'll concede that there's a difference. Albeit not a great one, certainly not big enough to justify killing someone for convenience.
I believe that death isn't the end. Yet I believe life is sacred. yes, we all must die, but it is not for us to determine when others die (with some obvious exceptions, like when it becomes their life or yours). I also believe choice is sacred, but I don't believe we can choose the consequences of those action. In the vast majority of cases, that's exactly what abortion is used for: to escape unwanted consequences of irresponsible actions. There are a few exceptions where I think abortion is a better choice: rape, for one, or when the mother's life is in endangered by bringing the baby to term.
Yes, life is harsh, but you have no way to quantify that it is better than not having that opportunity at life. Especially when that choice is made regarding someone ELSE's life. That someone isn't going to get the life-dream they had imagined and that their life will be harder now falls, far, far short of anything justifying the destruction of another person's life.
-
Well Archon, if you want to have a reasoned debate, why don't you start answering some of my questions:
No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death. How can you make such a guarantee?
As far as the slavery issue goes, it's completely unrelated to this topic, simply because the analogy doesn't fit. How is killing a slavemaster the same as killing an unborn baby? A slavemaster has done something to you. What crime has the baby committed? Simply have the gall to be conceived?
-
legally though he hasn't, if the slave had no legal rights like Rome or the United States.
-
Was either Archon or myself looking at this from a legal standpoint? No. Archon presented it as a moral issue: the slavemaster's behavior justified the slave to kill him. I responded on those grounds.
-
there were a lot of people who used to think that because the tenets of slavery were legal that they were also moral, including the early christian church, which owned slaves in the early stages.
-
But, like I said, that was not the argument that Archon was making.
-
I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thought that "legal" equated to "moral" today.
Well, I take that back. You could find some. But Not significant section of the population would feel that legality automatically connotes morality. Who lets their senator choose morality for them these days?
-
Lots of people, which is why there is a Christian Coalition.
-
How is killing a slavemaster the same as killing an unborn baby?
If you will look back
What I'm talking about is killing someone else not to defend a greater collection of people having choices, but killing another person so that YOU, just ONE person, can selfishly preserve their own choice.
I was challenging Saint's argument that it can't be morally right for someone to selfishly kill someone just so that they could have their choices.
-
Archon, I agree that killing a slavemaster and killing a baby are both selfish, but what does that prove? you certainly can't defend the morality of abortion by comparing it to killing slavemasters.
And you still haven't answered this question:
No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death. How can you make such a guarantee?
And Jeffe, I think you have it backwards. The Christian Coalition does not equate legality with morality. Instead, they try to make the laws match their own morality. If everything legal was also moral, the Christian Coalition would support abortion, fornication, and pornography. Which they don't. They don't let Senators set moral limits -- they lobby Senators to make moral laws.
-
or they elect senators to pass the laws they want...
However I agree we are digressing. Still I have a question for you Mustard...
Do you belive in the death penalty?
-
No matter what ill-concieved example you give, Archon, you're whole thesis rests on the idea that the unborn child will assuredly lead a terrible life--a life that is worse than death. How can you make such a guarantee?
First of all, this is one possible argument for justification. There are several others, including the limitations on when a fetus is considered to be a human being.
Second of all, I can not guarantee that their life will be terrible. I am telling you that it is a possibility, especially strong in the situations that I have previously described. I am also trying to bring to mind the fact that death is not the worst possible outcome. I am also saying that there are circumstances in which a pregnant woman, through no fault of her own, would be put in a bad position if she could not have an abortion. Since there could be no objective judge of whether or not a woman can have an abortion, and they are necessary in some cases, the only option I think would be fair would be to have open abortions.
Another thing that I dont think people have considered is that a woman can greatly increase the probability of a miscarriage or birth defects if she so chooses. If she is not allowed to have an abortion she could just smoke and drink and not be careful to protect her baby while it is unborn. I think people would agree that it should be an option to abort in case of a miscarriage, so she could just make sure that she miscarries.
-
There may be other scenarios, but you haven't argued them. They also don't factor into your arguments. If you wish to argue those justifications, then argue them, but you haven't, so they don't need counters from us. The thesis of YOUR argument is that life would be worse for the baby than killing it. You have consistently failed to demonstrate that. Yes, it's possible, but don't thiing it's PROBABLE, even in the situations you outlined.
People would go to black market abortion clinics and so forth. But people buy illegal drugs. People make illegal trade deals. People break into houses and steal things. People rape, steal, abuse, and kill. Does the fact that they still do these things mean we should legalize them too? Because rape will be safer for the rapist if it's legal for him to do. As will taking things that don't belong to them, violating contracts and so forth. If only these things weren't illegal it would be safer to do them? If this argument seems absurd to you, then why is abortion any different? If it were a crime, yes, some people would still do it, and with a lower safety level. That by no means we need to put our legal stamp of approval on it.
-
I think people would agree that it should be an option to abort in case of a miscarriage, so she could just make sure that she miscarries.
......what?
I don't understand that sentence. Abortion should be an option in the case of a miscarriage? Um, the medical term for miscarriage is "spontaneous abortion" so it would by definition be impossible to have a forced abortion in the event of a miscarriage.
-
There may be other scenarios, but you haven't argued them.
SE, I am saying that there are so many different sets of circumstances that we couldnt possibly have the time nor the patience to argue them. I have already presented several situations in which a mother would be justified in aborting a baby. There are plenty of other "what ifs" but nobody wants to take the time to speculate. Restricting abortions would lack the versatility to allow abortion when it was moral, and restrict it when it wasnt.
People would go to black market abortion clinics and so forth. But people buy illegal drugs.
My point is that what they would be doing wouldnt be illegal. You cant make it illegal for a mother to do heavy labor, which dramatically increases the risk for miscarriage. What they would be doing would be perfectly within their rights and would give them the right to an abortion because they would miscarry otherwise. Therefore, you couldnt enforce the law if you had an exception for miscarriages, and if you didnt you would be inhumane.
-
I'm sorry, but could you please explain what abortion has to do with miscarriage? If a woman miscarries, she has no need for an abortion because the fetus has already aborted itself. Do you perhaps have your terms mixed up? Also, if there was a law against abortions then it would be illegal regardless if it was humane. There are laws that a lot of people do not view as humane but they are still laws. Wow, I just looked at the beginning of this topic and it had nothing to do with abortion. I would not have guessed.
-
With ultrasound and other medical technology now, I believe that we can predict if a woman is going to have problems with having their baby. They probably have early warning signs and can stop the pregnancy when they find these. This is a guess, but like you said, if she miscarries she doesnt have the baby anyway. So all she has to do is to force herself to have a miscarriage and she will not have a baby anyway. Regardless you cant force her to have a baby.
It wouldnt matter, but we are trying to decide what the laws should be by morality right now. Therefore morality does matter, right now at least.
-
Um, I think it's harder for a woman to force herself to miscarry than you think, especially without harming herself. Yes, there are ways to determine if a woman will have a difficult pregnancy, but the medical field has progressed enough that the baby can usually be saved. Are you saying that if a woman is going to lose the baby regardless then she should be able to abort the fetus early on so she doesn't have to continue with the pregnancy? I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying.
I'm against abortion personally except in extreme cases such as when the mother's life is in great danger if she continues the pregnancy or some other specific cases. I don't think abortion is moral because I think it is very close to murder. I've been pregnant and I've felt my baby move. He had a personality even before he was born and I always thought of him as a baby. Aborting him would have been murder to me.
-
Archon, I understood what you said in terms of legalizing. What I'm saying is that just because there would be less CRIME by legalizing something, no problems are actually corrected. Just because someone will do something dangerous to themselves in difiance of the law doesnt' mean we should legalize that activity in order to make it more safe.
You've argued several situations in which you say it is POSSIBLE that the life of the baby would be a worse fate than having been aborted. What I've argued is that while that may be true, that even in all the situations you've brought up it is still IMPROBABLE that the baby living his/her life out would be worse than having been aborted.
And your continually bringing up "other scenarios" without actually explaining them or even stating what they are is becoming exceedingly tiresome. If you choose not to discuss those scenarios, than they are non-factors for this argument. They have not contributed to your point, so they do nothing to demonstrate your side. If you feel they will help you, then actually bring them up. Don't try to distract us by saying there are other ideas we haven't discussed yet.
-
Do you belive in the death penalty?
It's a different topic, which probably deserves its own thread, but yes, I do believe in the death penalty. However, I think it should only be used in the most heinous crimes, and only when guilt is certain.
-
I see,... so there are times when the sanctity of human life isnt that important, like when someone makes a mistake. That seems like a contradiction to your earlier statements.
-
oh please, Jeffe. You know you're my friend, but that's absurd. He's not proposing the death penalty for people who accidentally knife their spouse in the face a hundred times or accidentally sell state secrets to an antagonistic political entity.
reducing "heinous crimes" to "makes a mistake" is at best, a misrepresentation. a mistake is thinking it's ok to take the stapler home from the office when you didn't pay for it. a heinous crime is serially raping and murdering people.
I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty, for certain, but I know that this way of twisting HoM's words is very poor reasoning.
-
Thanks SE. You summed it up well -- I don't think I need to add anything there.
-
I didnt horrible twist his words... so dont act so shocked because its not that absurd,
To bring a little scripture into it...
"If someone does evil to you, do not pay him back with evil. Do everything possible on your part to live at peace with all. Never take revenge, my friends, but instead let God’s wrath do it. Do not let evil defeat you, instead, conquer evil with good." Romans 12:17-19, 21
1. why is life any cheaper in the case of a convicted murderer. 2. the way the deathDoesnt he have the right to repent too, to make a mistake... what if the crime was brutal, but in the heat of passion (happens a lot) and he simply couldnt get a good lawyer(happens a lot too) and he happens to be any other color than white. Its about 80 times more likely that he will recieve the death penalty in every state that has it. Is the fact that he couldnt get a good lawyer enough to condemn a man for a crime that a richer man could easily get off death row for.
-
your rationality ignores every condition HoM stated as a prerequisite for the death penalty, though. He talked about certainty of guilt and truly heinous crimes. In my mind, while taking a single life is terrible, it sounds like "most heinous" is several steps beyond one count of manslaughter.
You're trying to make a case on a belief that simply hasn't been expressed.
plus, yes, a convicted murderer's life IS weighted less than a baby, in terms of whose life should be preserved. One, he's already given into violent urges, while a baby hasn't had a chance to show whether (s)he would even HAVE those urges. Two, the murderer has already cut off someone else's life, ending their chances to make further choices.
So yes, you either twisted deliberately or didn't read what he actually wrote.
That scripture and sentiments like it is why I'm not sure what my stance is. However, we're also taught to defend our lives and our families and our liberties, even if it takes violence to do so (this is both in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants). It is not so trivial to dismiss the death penalty when it can easily be seen as a defense of society in this tradition. If it is done dispassionately and with careful consideration, it's reasonably seen not as revenge but as justice and defense of society. Many very spiritual figures killed in a court setting as a consequence of the suspect's crime.
So the scripture you posted is not a final word on the matter. It's much grayer than that, so I'm not sure what I believe. However, saying that HoM believes the death penalty should be used willy nilly for any crime, or even any crime that's vaguely serious seems like a deliberate misunderstanding of his words.
-
saying that HoM believes the death penalty should be used willy nilly for any crime, or even any crime that's vaguely serious
I never said that, or meant to imply it. Even by changing the word heinous to mistake I never meant to imply that so Im sorry if thats the interpritation you arrived at.
Its wrong.
First of all I have a feeling that both you and mustard think I am coming at you from the point of view as supporting Abortion (or beign pro choice) and not favoring the death penalty. The truth is im in as much a moral quandry over them as you guys are. When they tried the snipers here in DC I was glad that they were going to stand trial in VA, even though I feel that killing is wrong.
Im conflicted about abortion, feeling that its wrong, but beliving that the government should stop legislating at a point, and that if that legislation is a womans body and her unborn child one day it could be something just as close to home tomorrow, like manditory sterilization or other horrible things.
I have a sticking point with the word heinous. Is there a scale with which you can measure the brutality of crimes? Does chopping an arm off put a person over the line or firing 6 bullets instead of 5 mean your more or less evil or irreadeamable.
I belive what the savior said about loving all men and forgiving them, no matter how evil their deeds.
I belive in progress too, and hope that doctors can cure diseases and conditions that have millions of people on assisted living. But Im a realist and know that those people are a huge drain on their families both monitarily and emotionally.
...
ctd later after I get home... lunch breaks over.
-
well, I wondered, but i didn't assume you had a specific stance. I just don't see the conflict in HoM's potition that you do. It seems well reasoned and consistent, even if I can't believe in it.
-
I am too lazy to read this whole thread, but was told that it was interesting and I should say something. So if I make a point that was already made, you'll have to forgive me, or not.
Ookla, you made it clear in your opening arguments that you think that "killing" people before they are born is wrong because you don't know how they will live their life. While this is true, you could say the same about any means of protection or birth control. Technically you are killing thousands of possible children everytime you use it, but you aren't complaining about legal birth control killing people. A baby in the woom is not a person any more than a sperm going for an egg is, no matter what you say. They are both living things, and you are killing them both by using a means of anti-pregnancy, whether it be abortion and birth control.
Now, you also said that not giving abortion is a way of punishing the irresponsible parents. Do you really think this is intelligent, at all? If the parent is angry at the child for ruining their life, how happy do you think that child will be growing up? And if a person is so irresponsible to have an unwanted child, do you really think they'll be responsible enough to look up ways to get a child to a better home?
And if it is the parents mistake for having the child, I assume you are pro birth control/protection. This contradicts your statement about killing babies, because you are killing thousands of potential babies every time. Even married couples use protection and birth control, so don't give me anything about sex after marriage. It is a good idea to stay away from it until you are married, but you can still have an unwanted child after being married.
If there are technicalities during a birth, the mother dies. Are you saying that an innocent women is more suitable for death than an unborn child, which when it is killed doesn't even have a full brain or body yet?
And you have no problem eating cows, or if you're a vegetarian, plants. You're killing innocent beings there, even plants are living beings, and you are killing them for your benefit. It's no different here, the mother and father is "killing" a non sentient being for their benefit. You can't tell me a non born child is worth more than a plant, either, because they are nearly the same. Neither is concious of it's surroundings and both respond to stimuli. There's no difference between getting an abortion and chopping down a tree.
It's very unintelligent to ever use any sort of biblical reference to prove anything for two reasons. Reason A; people believe in different things, and there is no religion that is a majority of human beliefs, every religion is outnumbered by the others, so you'll never win like that. Reason B; You can use the bible to prove anything if you want to. People "prove" that "satan" is to be worshipped with the bible. People "proved" that committing suicide the night of haley's comet in mass would lead them to eternal bliss with Jesus on the comet. If I was motivated enough, I could counter every argument you make with an argument derived from the bible. I mean, didn't Jesus say, "Turn the other cheek"? So, technically, wouldn't the child not care if it is killed, because it is doing what Jesus said?
Do we really need more people than are WANTED in this world? I mean, we have enough already. World hunger, overpopulation, unemployment rates, there's just not enough to go around. The more people we have, the quicker we are going to destroy the planet, and then we wont have ANY more people. If a person isn't even wanted here, shouldn't we just save the planet one more person? I mean, if every child ever concieved is born, we will not only kill ourselves faster, but probably most other species on the planet. It's much less moral than killing a few developing embryos.
-
ugh. Gorgon, I can't even bring myself to counter such poorly reasoned and spasmodic arguments.
-
I don't see the problems with Gorgons argument. I think that you are being a little snobbish to just dismiss his argument without debate though.
-
I was in a hurry when I typed that, too, SE, which may go to show why it seems a little frazzled, but if there are things wrong with my argument, go ahead and point them out, and then I will fix the problems by going more in depth.
-
How about making a load of assertion with absolutely no backing and including a slough of invalid and ridiculous comparisons? Which pretty much covers every sentence in that post. there's a marked difference between a tree and a human being. There's a marked difference between a sperm cell and a fetus.
Whether you believe the fetus is a human being is another matter. There's no way to demonstrate it besides deciding on a definition and applying it. What YOU'RE doing, however, is not that. It's not the expression of an opinion. It's stating that this definition obviously flows from what HoM and I have been saying, which is tacitly not true and there's no way you can derive your conclusions from our statements without relying on a bizarre definition that no reasonable person agrees with.
Your comparisons simply do NOT connect to what we're saying. Your assertions do NOT have the firm ground you claim for them, nor do they have anything close to it.
plus, it's absolutely inexcusable to make such wild accusations without reading the arguments being made.
-
A) What is bizarre? Is bizarre just what you aren't used to? So you are automatically rejecting what is not common?
B) I was comparing plants to an unborn person because they have the same amount of awareness to their surroundings. An unborn child respoinds to stimuli, so do plants. An unborn child holds no knowledge, neither do plants. I am comparring them because an unborn child is just that, unborn. If it is not fully devoloped yet it is not a person.
C) Sperm and an unborn child are almost the same thing. The only difference is one is more developed. Otherwise, the "child" has no more awareness than the sperm. And the idea behind it is stopping the child from being born is the goal of both using birth control and abortions, to stop a child from being born. Why is it right to use one method and wrong to use the other. I mean, they do the same thing in the long run.
D) I don't see anything wrong with my argument against religious backings, which I DID see in this thread.
E) Isn't EVERYTHING in this thread the statement of opinion, SE? We are arguing about our opinions, so pretty much everything you say here will be an opinion.
F) I didn't read all the arguments here, no. I didn't have the time. Refer me back to one of your arguments with the page it's on if you want me to specifically read it.
-
The problem here Ehlers is that he was giving an overview of his arguments. Pick any one to debate about and he will go more in depth as far as reasons. I have debated with him and that is how we generally start.
-
Now, you also said that not giving abortion is a way of punishing the irresponsible parents.
I never said that. Nor did anyone in this thread except for you.
And if it is the parents mistake for having the child, I assume you are pro birth control/protection.
Bad assumption. I haven't stated an opinion one way or another, for what married people who don't want more children should do. I HAVE stated that unmarried people should not have sex.
It's very unintelligent to ever use any sort of biblical reference to prove anything for two reasons. Reason A; people believe in different things, and there is no religion that is a majority of human beliefs, every religion is outnumbered by the others, so you'll never win like that. Reason B; You can use the bible to prove anything if you want to.
I'm not trying to prove anything at all. However, I have every right I want to make biblical references. Saying it is unintelligent is insulting a huge fraction of the population. It's definitely a very insensitive thing to say.
Do we really need more people than are WANTED in this world? I mean, we have enough already. World hunger, overpopulation, unemployment rates, there's just not enough to go around. The more people we have, the quicker we are going to destroy the planet, and then we wont have ANY more people.
Those are entirely different debates. I dispute world hunger, overpopulation, and unemployment. The world is much better off today than it ever was. We just have poor distribution. But again, that is something for another thread, and I don't feel like getting into it.
-
a) nice spin. You going into politics?
B) you obviously have very little experience with unborn children. The fetus is very responsive to human contact and aware of its situation from a very early age. At least, as aware as one can be expected to be when one has never experienced anything else. They learn a lot of things. THere are numerous studies demonstrating that environmental influences, not just chemical/food ones, can have a huge impact on unborn children.
C) I'll refer you to the previous argument about awareness. Try to get some experience or learning about what you're speaking of before making this statement.
D) I didn't counter your religious poitn of view, but since you specifically bring it up again, you're still wrong. Relying wholly on a "rational"/secular point of view eliminate a huge realm of potential, and valid argument. It immediately makes at least as big an assumption as any theist is liable to make. This is bad argument structure.
E) and F) No, not all of it is opinion. Which is exactly what's wrong with your arguments. Much of what is being said is reasoned theory. Theory is NOT the same as opinion. And if you don't have the time to read the thread to see that, then you have no business responding to it. Seriously. If you don't have time to read an argument, you should not respond to it, because it just makes you say irrelevant things. Go back, read the thread, CAREFULLY, and then respond to the ideas being presented.
-
Abortion is a way to avoid responsibility for mistakes by pretending the mistakes never happened.
Ookla, it's pretty clear here that you are saying that because the parents were irresponsible they should have to have the child, as a way of showing them their mistakes so that they wont make them again. That's exactly what a punishment is.
SE, while it is true that sperm and a fetus are different, I'm trying to get a broad view across. Using birth control does, in the long run, do the same thing as getting an abortion. And by using birth control, you are, in fact, preventing a child from being born, but in a differenent way. I don't see anything wrong with that, and that was my point. And you said...
one has never experienced anything else
Exactly. If it hasn't experienced anything but being in the fetus it isn't going to miss being outside of it. And sure, the fetus is responsive to human contact, of course I understand this. But if you are trying to disprove my comparisson between an unborn child and a plant, that's not going to do it.
THere are numerous studies demonstrating that environmental influences
Plants are extremely responsive to their surroundings as well. But the baby fetus is only responding by trying to survive, and instinct tells it to respond. Plants respond to human contact as well. They respond to their enviroment. They respond to weather changes and the seasons. The respond to internal changes. So while a fetus might be reactive, I hardly think it is as reactive as a born person at the age that it stops developing due to an abortion.
SE, you are also overlooking the fact that an abortion can be done before the fetus forms. An abortion can be done to an embryo, causing it to stop developing. You are acting like it can only happen to a fetus, which I'll grant you is more highly developed than an embryo.
It's very unintelligent to ever use any sort of biblical reference to prove anything
Saying it is unintelligent is insulting a huge fraction of the population.
I'm curious, how is that insulting? I never said that it was unintelligent to believe in the bible, I just said that using it to prove something is not a great move. And you did try to do this with the statement...
That's exactly what Satan's plan was before the world was created, to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship. But that's what life IS. A life with no pain, strife, and hardship isn't much of a life at all!
And, again, I am NOT saying religion is wrong, because that would be a very opinionated statement. However, you can use the bible to "prove" just about anything, Ookla. That's why there are so many fractions off the same ideals. That's why so many religious wars have broken out in history between different God worshipping factions. We aren't even talking about pagans, ect. Just people who believe in the same God, but interpret what he said differently. You can't even necissarily use the bible to prove something religious to someone else using that same book to counter debate. You are hardly going to get far trying to use the bible to prove something else. So, I wasn't insulting your religion or anything, sorry if it came across like that, I was just saying that it's not the greatest move in a debate to turn to religous means, that's all.
No, not all of it is opinion.
Not all of mine is opinion either. All of my stated opinions are based on facts, the opinion is just how I interpret those facts.
-
Ookla, it's pretty clear here that you are saying that because the parents were irresponsible they should have to have the child, as a way of showing them their mistakes so that they wont make them again. That's exactly what a punishment is.
Actually, what he's saying is that they must live with the consequences of their actions. If they view it as punishment, it doesn't matter. They've already made the choice to have the possibility of bringing a child into the world by having sex. Period.
This is much different from using birth control, but even with birth control there's a certain percentage of chance that pregnancy will result, and people should be prepared for the consequences. Hence, the best thing to do would be to wait till you're in a position in which you can live with the consequences of your choices--a position in which you're ready to accept the responsibility of being a parent.
-
A punishment is the consequences of your actions. So the consequences, if negative, of your actions is a punishment.
I never said birth control was foolproof, nor did I hint or imply that. I DID say that birth control and abortions do the same thing, which they do. The both prevent a baby from being born.
-
so it's only experience that makes us human, Gorgon? That means you have much less worth than I. For I'm almost twice as old as you. Does that means it's less a crime to kill you than me?
You missed entirely my point about response. They develop and respond in human ways. the Fetus DOES learn.
punishment is one TYPE of consequence for action, Gorgon. it is not the ONLY consequence. That is a major flaw in your reasoning. A square is a quadrilateral, but not all quadrilaterals have 90 degree angles and all equal sides.
-
I almost feel as though some people in this thread are arguing just for the sake of arguing, but I'll put in my two cents anyway. Mainly, I just want to say that birth control and abortion are not the same thing even if they bring about the same ends "in the long run." Many different means can bring about the same ends, but that doesn't make the means equal. Next, your argument for why a fetus is on par with a plant is flawed. Plants don't have personalities, a fetus does. Don't even try to argue with me on this point because I've been pregnant and you haven't so experience is on my side. As for the embryo vs. fetus issues, you're just making the argument more complicated when you can't even convince anyone of the parts you've already argued. This whole thread is getting tired.
-
I am NOT TRYING TO PROVE ANYTHING. If you think I am trying to prove something, well, I'm not even going to try to prove that I'm not trying to prove anything!
I think people have already said in this thread how responsibility and punishment are different.
Not having children and killing children before they are born are different things. Maybe you don't see the difference between it, but I don't see the difference between killing a child before it is born or killing it after it is born. Same result, the child is still dead. Whereas if you don't have sex, or even if you use birth control, you don't end up with a bunch of dead children.