No it doesn't prevent "all" of us from valuing life, but the modern culture and all the examples Mrs. JB gave influence "all" of these children who grow into "all" of these adults. How much value you place on life varies from person to person, of course, as you can see from this thread and everyday occurences in life and in the news. Basically, I agree with her that the way a child is raised and the way a person lives has a great influence on how much value they place on life. Very true. Let's support all positive influences in our culture. Hayes, the violence, vulgarity, p*rn, drugs and drinking, the love of money and filth. You know what she's saying. If you lie down with dogs, you're gonna rise up in fleas. There are a lot of vices heavily promoted within our culture (one example being abortion, which is also an effect of other vices). We wish the effects of being clean and spiritual and a good person were more heavily promoted. Again, she's not saying 'we are all zombies to the modern culture.' She's just saying it has a large affect and influence on our society, our children and our "adults". I'm not going to debate whether her value hierarchy puts a woman's 'right to choose' above life, which on the surface and at the core seems to be the case for most of the 'pro-choice' people. However, if abortion is made illegal you must realize that a woman will always retain her "choice" and you may have a society where women are jailed and punished by our judicial system. Would the wealthy suburban girl in her late twenties who has recieved 3 or 4 abortions get the same punishment as a mother of 3 who runs a high risk of complications during another pregnancy due to her failing health and Multiple Sclerosis disease? I think I would prefer to change society, educate the children and parents and try to reverse our cultural trends of abortion, violence, material wealth and filthiness and leave the judging part up to God/Allah/Spirit. Though, maybe our judicial system could pass some laws making abortions free and, instead, offer education, support and counselling. Actually encouraging the mother AND father to have the baby and be good parents. Educate them about govt. assistance programs and furthering their own education, help them in a job search, help the mother with a breast-feeding support group and the father AND mother with a parenting class, etc., etc.
<b>Mrs.JB</b>: I don't get it. I don't attack your positions the way some do here, yet you refuse to answer my questions, you demean me as "rigid," and shut me out. Where's the courage of your convictions?
Forgive me for intruding, but exactly how many times should Mrs. JB argue with a brick wall to prove "the courage of her convictions?" I think we are all well acquainted with Mrs. JB's convictions. It's lowly of you to accuse her of cowardice because she is declining to have the same argument she's had with you ad nauseum, in at least two very long threads. She continues to debate with people who are bringing something new to the conversation, which is more than I'm willing to do. You aren't bringing anything new and you guys have butted heads on this long enough. I applaud her for walking away. I wish you'd do the same.
<b>Batman</b>: When I need to talk to you, I will use your name-- as I am doing here. I stopped short of calling her a coward-- how uncouth! That "courage of your convictions" thing is the same kind of "precious" figure of speech matter that she defended herself with. I asked her a pointed question, her answer to which would have been enlightening. She chose not to answer. Why? I am not a brick wall, for if I were I can only imagine the blasphemy that you would have spray-painted across my being. Mrs.JB and I never have butted heads. We always strike glancing blows and off she goes.... too soon. I've called her on this before. I'm not that formidable. You've said so yourself! She and I always stick to our same position, but only I get ridiculed by the Great Batman as adding nothing to the discussion. Is that funny or what? As a basketball afficionado, perhaps you can appreciate this: <B>STICK TO THE FUNDAMENTALS</B>. Fundamental #1: An innocent human life is not to be wasted for someone's preference or convenience.
Since you used my name in your last post I will respond. That was dimsie who used the word "precious" that people then mistakenly took as literal instead of colloquially. Stick to the enemy fundamentals.
Yeah. So how does that somehow make us unable to value life? That's strange. How does a movie or a magazine perpetuating the so-called 'beauty myth' make us unable to value life? How does it have anything to do with someone making the personal choice to have an abortion, to put their lifestyle above a life? How does an action movie make that value choice happen? Of course not. What is there to debate? Even in rape or incest cases, should you KILL something alive because it will remind you of your trauma? That decision may not be easy, but it certainly a case of choosing lifestyle vs life. I never said anything about making it illegal. In fact, I said we could never FORCE women to carry to full term. I am pro-choice, if that suprises you. But I recognize its a CHOICE (that's where they get the 'choice' in pro-choice). If a women decides to terminate her pregnancy it is her choosing her lifestyle over a life. That may be ok, but to deny that equation is silly. To say the woman somehow is not in control of that choice is a cop out. I like material wealth. What does that have to do with violence, abortion, and filthiness? I think most rich people are clean. Its homeless people that are filthy. Sure. What does that have to do with my objection to Ms JB saying 'how can we be expected to value life while Jackie Chan is karate chopping people all over the place, and Playboy is airbrushing boobies?'
Um, yeah, that was me. But I suppose all pro-choice women look and sound alike to giddyup. HayesStreet is getting all ornery again, Mrs. JB. Maybe we should get him a tshirt that says 'contrarian'.
It's understandable, really. If you were always right, but were surrounded by people who were too stupid to realize it, you'd be ornery too.
It's easy to confuse Mrs.JB and dimsie; they are always backing each other up. rimbaud-- I don't get the reference to my using your name? Some people are apparently just above the discussion. Oh well. Is this inability/unwillingness to stick to the discussion an indication of a weak-minded fair sex?!? Can't you rise above this "cliquish" finger-pointing and name-calling. Hey, this can be fun....
On a greyhound bus, Lord, HayesStreet's traveling this morning He's going to Shreveport and on down to New Orleans Been driving these highways, been doing things his way It's been making him lonesome,on'ry and mean Now her hair was jet black,and her name was dim-sie Thought she was the cream of the Kiwi queens She got tired of that smokey white dream Began to feel lonesome,on'ry and mean She & Ms JB got together,and they cashed in their sweeps Gave them to a beggar who was mumbling through the streets There's no escaping from thier snowy white dreams Born lookin' lonesome,on'ry and mean Now giddyup's down in this valley,where the wheels turn so low At dawn he prays,to the Lord of his soul He says do Lord,do right by the babies He's tired of being lonesome,on'ry and mean Goodnight ladies.
It shows that we do not value each and every life with equality. For example, sex symbols are valued for the one thing, making them a little less than human. Same thing can be said for the bodies in a body count movies (or the 10 o'clock news for that matter).
Get it straight: you're ornery and I'm rigid. <><><><><><><><><> I think it bears re-posting. Here is my last "rigid" post on the basis of which Mrs.JB refused to answer my question and opted out of further discussion with me: "I'm only poking my nose into other people's business because they are killing little unborn children. In other circumstances and to some people, that is heroic. It's very commonplace actually. You still didn't answer my question about the soul? Are you pro-Choice for economic reasons while choosing to ignore the biological facts of life? That's what it sounds like. My principal interest is in saving lives not judging people. Why do you think I spend a moment's time or energy on judging people? As I've said before, I once married a woman who had had two abortions-- acts which she very much regretted I might add. I would rather have married her with two beautiful chldren than two heartaches... if you know what I mean. IF you think it renders my arguments feeble, think again. It is a failure at distracting from my central message. Unborn chldren have rights too and a right to life is fundamental. I've not screamed at anyone. All your suggestions are great and valid, but that doesn't mean we have to allow the killing of unborn children until all those conditions are met does it?"
Ah, of course. I really only think of Claudia Schiffer because she's a sex symbol. So now I can KILL someone because I value life less. That's brilliant.
HayesStreet, You are desperately reading as much as possible in what I wrote (and in between the linesof what I wrote). I did not say killing is OK, in any way, shape or form. We do value human value with inequality. Want to debate that? We as a society in the USA strive to treat everybody the same. It is our gioal. We are not perferct but at least we try. If we did believe that racism or sexism (or whatever) is acceptable behavior, we are steps away from saying that killing some humans is OK. Valuing every human life with equality is something on which we as a society need to work. By human life, I am restricting the definition to that of the US Supreme Court. The pro-life side of the abortion debate centers on expanding the definition of what constitutes human life. JB and I were only saying that maybe we as a society should concentrate first on treating humans (as defined by the Supremes) better before we expand the definition.
The United States Supreme Court disagrees with you about when life starts. What make you right and them wrong?
If that made any sense I might. That would seem to be the reverse of your argument... 'We don't treat everyone equally right now, so let's no worry about whether or not we are killing something that is alive.' You are just making no sense. That's like saying 'let's combat racism before taking on the battle over sexism, because we have such small brains that we can only handle one thing at a time.' That is absurd. And really none of that answers my only objection in this thread, which is that it is a cop out to say 'there are all these bad influences, so how can we be expected to value an unborn child's life.' If we logically applied that principle you could say 'How can we be expected not to murder another adult, after all we grew up watching soooo much violence on TV that we just don't have a capacity to understand that when you shoot someone they're dead.' Give me a break.
The Supreme Court has ruled on many things that we no longer agree with like the Dred Scott decision endorsing slavery. Care to try again?
