Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 104

Thread: The connection between guns ,abortion & religion.

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Peally View Post
    Gardon we need to get you a hobby. This thread was pointless before it was posted.
    Yeah he should take up shooting or something.

  2. #62
    Site Supporter Sensei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Greece/NC
    These discussions are complicated by the lack of agreement on definitions and loose use of terms that have specific meanings. For example, people are using the terms “human” and “person” interchangeably and probably inappropriately. That is to say, a blastocyst has all of the genetic criteria to be considered human, but may not be a person. Then, people want to refer to a fetus as part of a woman’s body eventhough it is immunologically distinct and has its own metabolism and circulation. Don’t get me started on how terms like living, alive, and life get manipulated to fit an agenda.
    I like my rifles like my women - short, light, fast, brown, and suppressed.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by critter View Post
    -- Something I've wondered about -- If the fetus is actually a mass of dividing cells which can be legally aborted then why is there a charge for feticide under other circumstances?

    -- Religion -- Freedom of Religion and from religion -- both categories apply for all religions.
    I heard this from Shapiro's argument the other day and can't help but agree, last I checked we were all technically a mass of cells and it's illegal for me to just go and kill someone else because they are an inconvenience to me. The morality of this argument is unchangeable as I see it. Really compelling argument in my opinion.

    I completely agree with the second point thought I do find myself to have a profound faith. I have the right to practice and worship as I choose and others are free to do the same or not so long as no laws are broken in the process and it is not forced upon anyone.




    Quote Originally Posted by RevolverRob View Post
    The Constitution guarantees justice. Not morality or ethics.

    You cannot legislate moral behavior. You cannot force a square peg into a round hole without a hammer that causes collateral damage.

    If right to privacy is a constitutionally protected right - then the rights of people to discreetly carry guns, have abortions, or have sex with whomever they choose to (consensually) - should all be protected rights.

    To be honest, I find the vast majority of Organized Religious teachings to be ammoral to immoral at best. I believe that many unethical actions are taken in the name of religious righteousness. The most immoral and unethical people I have known have been devout followers.

    And because the Constitution protects freedom of religion, I will die to the death, to defend their rights to continue to have their immoral, unethical teachings and personal ways.

    To some degree, the Constitution actually guarantees the right to be immoral and unethical. As long as you don’t actively violate the rights or agreed upon laws of our country.

    I’m sure people think I have questionable morals. Afterall, I’m a non-religious, abortion supporting, gun carrying, death penalty supporting, evolution teaching and believing, cis-gendered, bi-racial man - who frequently walks the line between the rules and gray areas in my personal and professional life. And I don’t give two rats fucking in a sock - about what anyone thinks about it. Because that’s my business and no one else’s business.
    Rob, I know you bowed out but I am interested in you thoughts. Feel free to PM me if you aren't interested in airing your thoughts again. So while I agree that, "the Constitution guarantees justice. Not morality or ethics." It does in effect to a degree control the morality of behavior. This is accomplished through the threat of confinement, force/violence, fines and in some places death. People do not go out rape and murder and steal; well, at least the majority don't. Some of that is derived from moral upbringing and values, some do go out and do those things because they are scum, but there is a small percentage that strictly do not go out and commit heinous crimes solely due to the repercussions. Some people have even gone as far as to state that.

    Secondly I am curious about your statement about Organized Religion and unethical devotees. I can point out plenty of immoral and unethical people who are both religious and nonreligious as well as, (insert race, political group, religious affiliation). I have also seen this same behavior from extremely educated individuals as well as uneducated, both rich and poor. Unethical and immoral behavior is strictly that and the blame for that behavior lies with the individual not the religion as a whole, nor race, education level, class etc. There are exceptions to this but they are fewer and far between and the most notable in the past. I want to admit that I have been called on my own bias as I have some serious biases/reservations with regards to Islam primarily with the way it is contorted thought I don't blame the religion itself as the problem. Why are you drawing such general parallels? You are extremely intelligent from what I've gathered from your posts over the years, is there a specific catalyst for this view in particular or do you just dislike organized religion as a whole in practice, (is it a specific religion)? If so why? Personally I have no dog in the fight, I have profound faith but do not find myself deeply involved in organized religion and am interested in what has caused you to view religion or one specifically as a whole unethical/immoral.

    I won't dispute that atrocities are committed in the name of religion. But look around you can find many who commit the same atrocities because they want to and religion is just a catalyst for power not because they believe what they are selling to the masses, (I'm thinking of ISIS leadership and other terrorist organizations here) thought there are domestic examples as well. Political parties have also done the same to advance their agenda and solidify power and it had nothing to do with religion. It sounds as most of your argument is based on personal views and biases as there are plenty of other groups/organizations who have committed much of the same, to include academia which you have left out of the discussion and I think they have a seat at the table.

    I ask not to start an argument but to promote discussion as I believe that this statement was made out of your own personal biases and judgements and is largely broad. I would add that the Constitution we have is not perfect but is by and large the best there is. The framework of this country is largely based on Judeo-Christian values which is a pretty decent in terms of the basis for moral or decent behavior. It's not perfect but show me a system that is.

    Lastly I may not agree with everything that you have to say but I would certainly listen, think and absorb what I can and do my best to understand, most here seem to be that way. I wouldn't judge you because I don't agree with you or because you are, "non-religious, abortion supporting, gun carrying, death penalty supporting, evolution teaching and believing, cis-gendered, bi-racial man." That has fuck all to do with it. If you were and immoral ass I would hate you for that, . Never because of your beliefs or views unless you were forcing them on me or someone else then that would be different. You are entitled to believe and think and say as you so desire so long as you aren't breaking the law or forcing your views and imposing your beliefs on myself or others. I will and have offered to die for those rights and would do it again with no hesitation. That is in fact the beauty and the bane of our system to which I am grateful to have. Sorry for the book.


    To actually add something to this discussion I do find all three of these subjects, mostly, "distinct matters" unto themselves. The exception is the 2nd. I do believe having seen how many other countries are run first hand that our Second Amendment rights secure every other right. If you want to have freedom of religion, free speech or any other right you have to be able to secure it with force. I do believe it was a member here who wrote a blog post that resonates with me even to this day it might have been the OP. I'm paraphrasing but there are only two ways to get someone to do what you want, you can reason with them or force them with the threat of violence. If people aren't willing to reason with you or allow you to disagree and continue down your current path then you have to be able to provide equal force to back your argument if the other side is willing to impart violence upon you in order to achieve their means. Guns allow that and so I believe that this subject is a matter unto itself. As to the others I am liberal in my beliefs of the practice of religion but I am very conservative in my views of protecting all life especially life that is unable to protect itself.
    Last edited by Mike C; 05-24-2018 at 11:41 AM.

  4. #64
    Member That Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    overseas
    Quote Originally Posted by GardoneVT View Post
    I’m genuinely curious why people believe those subjects to be connected- no BS,no snark.
    I feel that a lot of, if not even most people, do not form their opinions rationally. (I suppose I must take care to emphasize I am not referring to anyone here with my statement.) Their thoughts come more from being herd animals and the desire to belong to a group. "Troop A believes in A, B and C. I wish to belong to troop A. Therefore I shall signal my belief in A, B and C in order to display my membership in my chosen troop of monkeys."

    This is a depressing thought but reading daily news, it's a difficult one to avoid.

    Sent from my Infernal Contraption using Tapatalk
    IDPA SSP classification: Sharpshooter
    F.A.S.T. classification: Intermediate

  5. #65
    Site Supporter Irelander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Venango County, PA
    From my porch...
    A people or government that denies the existence of God (religion), many times, denies basic moral/biological/scientific facts. For example: Life begins sometime between conception and birth vs. the biological fact that life begins at conception, gender is a state of mind vs. a biological fact, some lives are precious vs. all lives are precious, etc. When these facts are denied that opens the door for totalitarian ideologies where the state determines who lives, who dies, who can protect themselves, who can be a parent, etc. We're starting to see this kind of stuff on the West Coast and unfortunately the rest of the country slowly follows.

    So I think that religion, or the lack thereof, is connected to abortion and guns. Once religion is out the door, the sanctity of life usually follows suit. If life is not precious then abortion will abound and there is no reason for you to have a gun to protect your life.
    Jesus paid a debt he did not owe,
    Because I owed a debt I could not pay.

  6. #66
    Modding this sack of shit BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by critter View Post
    -- Something I've wondered about -- If the fetus is actually a mass of dividing cells which can be legally aborted then why is there a charge for feticide under other circumstances?
    Why can I legally put my child up for adoption but it you take the child to raise against my will it's kidnapping?
    Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.

  7. #67
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    St Louis
    Those three topics have been connected from the first couple of paragraphs in our Declaration of Independence on, haven't they?

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike C View Post
    I heard this from Shapiro's argument the other day and can't help but agree, last I checked we were all technically a mass of cells and it's illegal for me to just go and kill someone else because they are an inconvenience to me. The morality of this argument is unchangeable as I see it. Really compelling argument in my opinion.
    Technically a mass of cells, certainly so. Obviously most don't have a problem with single cells being discarded, and probably wouldn't consider a zygote to be life on its own. The question of morality is tethered to that point where individual life begins. That's a question I'm not qualified to answer so I can only go by what is or isn't currently legal.

    It has always struck me as strange that an abortion is the legal removal of tissue whereas in other circumstances it is defined as a killing (using the 'cide' suffix).



    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    Why can I legally put my child up for adoption but it you take the child to raise against my will it's kidnapping?
    In that example, the child is already defined as an individual entity or a life though there is a point there. The child is not 'property of' the parents, so this action can't be theft related -- and another raising the child could, theoretically, be a better situation for the child and actually in the child's best interest soooooo ...

    Granted one is a choice and the other isn't. Your example doesn't magically transform the child into something else. The word "feticide" actually does, apparently, transform the fetus from dependent tissue to 'life which can be killed.' That's just... odd considering the outcome is equivalent.
    You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    Why can I legally put my child up for adoption but it you take the child to raise against my will it's kidnapping?
    You would have to let that child live first to put it up for adoption.

  10. #70
    Heading back to the OP........

    It’s easy to bundle views into a big ball of stereotypes, but a lot of folks are more complex than the pundits would have us believe.

    Just for fun I’ve written “red” and “blue” profiles of myself — both true, but painting a very different picture in the mind of someone who believes certain characteristics and beliefs are always linked. “Rural-raised firefighter gun owner......” and “Liberal arts college grad oBoston resident sea kayaker” —- what box are you going to put me in?

    It can be fun to defy people’s expectations.
    Last edited by peterb; 05-24-2018 at 01:29 PM.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •