I love it when folks get all "THIS is the absolute TRUTH" in a discussion...
That doesn't change the fact that abortion is murder and that embryos are inarguably innocent human children that deserve legal protections. Are U.S. troops intentionally killing babies? No. So that line of reasoning is simply absurd.
But it's NOT a "fact": it's a widely held opinion, but not a "fact". Truthfully, the only thing you can honestly say is a "fact" about abortion is that it's a medical procedure. Saying that embryos are "inarguably innocent human children that deserve legal protections" kinda ignores that there IS an argument going on about it (and probably will be for many years)...
Are U.S. troops intentionally killing babies? No. So that line of reasoning is simply absurd.
To us, yes... it is absurd. To Joe Muslim, maybe not so much.
I was talking about the suggestion that, if one sees any difference (legally, morally or otherwise) between the two killings, one is somehow going down some scary road that leads to some scary place.
You DON'T see it? Guess you've never come under threat of violence for your beliefs.
I have.
There are people (even here in the US) who would tell you that my personal beliefs are in
fact, wrong and morally repugnant. And have offered violence to me, because of it. BTW: they have just as much evidence to back up their assertions as you can provide on the abortion issue. Should I NOT be concerned that some wacko zealot might actually decide to act on such an impulse? Especially since we now HAVE such a zealot?
Ah, see there's the trouble Strings. I don't hold to moral relativism; we have vastly different worldviews, so of course we'd differ in their application.
Don't misunderstand me: I still judge cultures based on my own beliefs. That's something we all do. I personally think that the culture (or current lack thereof) in the ME is sickening. But I DO also try to see it from within the context of their society: doing so allows one to try and find a way to change their society, or at the least mitigate the damage they can cause to the rest of humanity.
And, whether you "hold to" it or not, morality IS relative to a culture and era. There really are no moral absolutes: what we consider such are rules of behavior that have developed through a sort of "moral Darwinism", in which mores that encouraged society to flourish propogated themselves. It could be that, sometime in the future, a new paradigm in morality might take hold, and replace the current systems. It's happened many times in the past, and will certainly happen again. Setting your thinking in stone about it leads to stagnation...
As for this: "So far, I don't think I've seen anyone condone the killings (here or elsewhere)"... I HAVE heard it. And saying "well, he was murdering babies" IS condoning the action of killing him. You may not be saying he should get off, and you might not take the action he did. But, by saying "he was a baby killer", you're exposing a part of yourself that feels his murder WAS justified. At the very least, be honest about that!
The absolute funny part of all this? I think that "late term abortions" (except in some VERY strict circumstances) is morally repugnant, and that a doctor that could preform such has some mental issues.
Nor do I think that there is any acceptable justification for what the psycho did to those soldiers: look at the pic of him being led away, and the smirk on his face. That man is a clear danger to our society (relative to our morality
), and should be removed from it (which is why I support the death penalty in cases like this). Where I seem to differ from y'all is feeling that Tiller's killer is just as dangerous, and should meet the same fate...
