The Constitution states that everyone has a right to life.
Abortion violates that. Assisted Suicide will harm it (there was a case of an Oregon man being told by his insurance company that they wouldn't pay for his life-saving procedure, but they'd pay for an assisted suicide). They essentially put a price-tag on life.
I do not want people to suffer. But I also do not believe our lives are for us to take. I do not believe this causes suffering. I believe it upholds life and the sanctity of life. I do not believe life comes with a price tag or an expiry date. It isn't ours to take.
Life...isn't sacred. It's a bunch of chemical reactions and self-replicating molecules. In our case, it's a bunch of chemical reactions that can contemplate the concepts of morals and ethics.
Well, I will compliment you on being consistent in this regard at least. Indeed, if the materialistic, atheistic reductionist view is correct, human life is not sacred. Life itself has no meaning, objective value or worth. I do not know how you get up in the morning with that kind of depressing outlook on life. It is a true wonder to me how most atheists do not kill themselves.
Terminally ill patients deserve a choice. Old people should be allowed to have DNR orders.
Why? If human life is not sacred and human life has no intrinsic value or dignity and is nothing more than a reaction of chemicals and molecules, then why do ill or old patients even "deserve" a choice? How can such a being have moral consideration when morality has no objective ontological basis in reality, according to your philosophy?
A Right to Lifer Answersheavens_steedJuly 9 2009, 09:17:06 UTC
Hey there.
I was taking a glance at your journal and saw this entry and as one of those "right to life" people you are talking about, I thought I would say something :)
Why is it that they have all the power to have bills being written or passed to prevent such?
I'm not sure how you have come to this conclusion. The power to support or restrict abortion usually depends on which ever party has the most influence. During Bush's presidency, there was decreased support for abortion and consequentially, abortions also dropped to their lowest point since Roe v. Wade. President Obama, however, has already reversed many of Bush's policies on abortion and may continue to increase "abortion rights" with the Freedom of Choice Act. It is actually supporters of abortion that have most of the power, especially right now. They have Obama and a Democratic congress in power and they have Roe v. Wade.
Do they honestly want people to suffer, or that of the planet even more?No, we do not want people to suffer. The reason we are against abortion is
( ... )
Re: A Right to Lifer Answersheavens_steedJuly 9 2009, 09:17:33 UTC
They who burden financial systems with unnecessary expenses every year for the cost of caring for a child that no one wanted one that might grow up to be a criminal, or the patient who should have died 6 months into their illness and is just lying in a hospital bed attached to machines that prolong their life but one that is nothing but endless pain and misery.There is no child that "no one" wants. There are plenty of couples and other people desperate to adopt but our system makes it extremely difficult. The mother may not want her child but odds are someone else out there does. And how can you rationally justify killing someone for something that -might- happen in the future? You don't know if the baby will turn out to be a criminal or not. Who are you to decide that child's fate? What if someone came up to you and threatened to kill you because they believed you were going to rob a bank next Tuesday? That's simply absurd. You cannot punish someone for a crime they have not actually committed
( ... )
Re: A Right to Lifer AnswerscetasdolphinJuly 10 2009, 01:07:17 UTC
Eh I don't mind if you added me or such, I possibly might friend you back as well. I do like meeting and chatting with others even if opinions vary. I mean after all if no one had an opinion this would be a rather very boring society or such we live in. It isn't like I would actually go out and advocate what I wrote, it was just me writing what was on my mind during one night.
The only sore point I have is that before I was taking care of my mother, I was taking care of my grandmother (father's mother) who during her last few months of life (as such) seemed more like torture to my father than a life at all. She passed away peacefully 6 days before Christmas but my father is convinced that was only the shell of a body that died and that her true soul went out 3 months prior. That the body was only alive so that the doctors charged with trying to make her well were using it to get her money. My father however is one that has a more scientific mindset though being he is a trained electrical engineer.
Comments 6
The Constitution states that everyone has a right to life.
Abortion violates that. Assisted Suicide will harm it (there was a case of an Oregon man being told by his insurance company that they wouldn't pay for his life-saving procedure, but they'd pay for an assisted suicide). They essentially put a price-tag on life.
I do not want people to suffer. But I also do not believe our lives are for us to take. I do not believe this causes suffering. I believe it upholds life and the sanctity of life. I do not believe life comes with a price tag or an expiry date. It isn't ours to take.
Dominus tecum
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Well, I will compliment you on being consistent in this regard at least. Indeed, if the materialistic, atheistic reductionist view is correct, human life is not sacred. Life itself has no meaning, objective value or worth. I do not know how you get up in the morning with that kind of depressing outlook on life. It is a true wonder to me how most atheists do not kill themselves.
Terminally ill patients deserve a choice. Old people should be allowed to have DNR orders.
Why? If human life is not sacred and human life has no intrinsic value or dignity and is nothing more than a reaction of chemicals and molecules, then why do ill or old patients even "deserve" a choice? How can such a being have moral consideration when morality has no objective ontological basis in reality, according to your philosophy?
And banning abortion...would lead to an ( ... )
Reply
I was taking a glance at your journal and saw this entry and as one of those "right to life" people you are talking about, I thought I would say something :)
Why is it that they have all the power to have bills being written or passed to prevent such?
I'm not sure how you have come to this conclusion. The power to support or restrict abortion usually depends on which ever party has the most influence. During Bush's presidency, there was decreased support for abortion and consequentially, abortions also dropped to their lowest point since Roe v. Wade. President Obama, however, has already reversed many of Bush's policies on abortion and may continue to increase "abortion rights" with the Freedom of Choice Act. It is actually supporters of abortion that have most of the power, especially right now. They have Obama and a Democratic congress in power and they have Roe v. Wade.
Do they honestly want people to suffer, or that of the planet even more?No, we do not want people to suffer. The reason we are against abortion is ( ... )
Reply
Reply
The only sore point I have is that before I was taking care of my mother, I was taking care of my grandmother (father's mother) who during her last few months of life (as such) seemed more like torture to my father than a life at all. She passed away peacefully 6 days before Christmas but my father is convinced that was only the shell of a body that died and that her true soul went out 3 months prior. That the body was only alive so that the doctors charged with trying to make her well were using it to get her money. My father however is one that has a more scientific mindset though being he is a trained electrical engineer.
Reply
Leave a comment