The “yeah, I guess” wasn’t meant to undermine the 14-year-old girl, it was just an admittance that they are different situations. I shouldn’t have phrased it as less of a handwave.
Crap.
I agree with those saying nudity can be artistically important, and I think it shouldn’t be censored. I will also say that I have trouble watching movies with explicit nudity with family members, and the same goes for sex scenes (that may or may not contain nudity in frame). That sort of stuff just makes me immensely uncomfortable around others. It might be a subconscious desire for personal approval, but I really can’t tell.
The attitude that it’s murder to abort a six-week-old fetus but a person who murdered a fully developed person can completely wipe the slate clean by accepting Jesus is revolting to me.
Murder is murder.
If you think aborting a six week old fetus is in any way comparable to someone coming into your house at night and killing your family, raping the corpses, and burning the house to the ground…
This post is ridiculous. When did I ever compare those situations? The killing of multiple people, raping the corpses, and burning the house are all things that you added to make me sound absurd even though I never mentioned those things. All I’m saying is that killing a person who is outside the womb at any age is considered murder by pretty much everyone, and in my opinion killing a fertilized egg/fetus is also murder. Is it “more bad” to kill a 14-year-old girl than a six-week fetus? Yeah, I guess, but both are still killing a living human being, which makes them both murder.
Both can be redeemed.
Ah yes, all is forgiven, just accept Jesus. Nothing you ever did matters anymore, the people whose lives you destroyed don’t matter, all that matters is that you’re sorry. Lovely.
I mean, not exactly, but you seem to be incredibly dense and willfully ignorant on this subject so I’m not going to argue about that.
I didn’t seem worth responding to.
The attitude that it’s murder to abort a six-week-old fetus but a person who murdered a fully developed person can completely wipe the slate clean by accepting Jesus is revolting to me.
Murder is murder. Both can be redeemed, neither is ideal.
This post, my 21268th, will NOT be my last post on originaltrilogy.com. Nevertheless, like yhwx before me, this is a post I’ve been delaying writing for a few weeks now, for a reason I don’t really know.
Over these last 3-4 months, my … let’s call it “keen investment” … in the forum has waned. A number of once-regular posters have faded into the ether, and the colour they brought to this place has faded with them. Discussions hereabouts don’t pique/hold my interest as they once did, and their absence in the proceedings plays into that. At the same time, this is the only on-line community I’m really a part of and I have no friends in the real world, so I need this place for socialization, to keep myself from going stir crazy.
tl;dr: I’m not really leaving, but I am going into semi-lurker mode for an indefinite period of time.
Dammit, you’re easily one of the more interesting posters here.
Ditto. I’m gonna be poking around the walls to see if I can find you lurking.
Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?
I don’t care about birth control as I already alluded to.
I’m asking if you want free birth control and condoms for anyone that wants it.
I mean, I wouldn’t mind it. People have to buy medicine so I don’t see the problem with buying condoms.
With sex-ed, I doubt any education beyond what is already in highschool health classes would even be benefical.
Okay, so you’re wrong there. Countries with real comprehensive sex-ed (not fake, abstinence-only sex ed) from elementary-school onward have much lower abortion rates than in the U.S.
I stand corrected. If that’s the case I think there should be.
And I don’t know what you want me to say about the welfare state.
If you demand that all unwanted pregnancies be carried to term then you better be ready to endorse supporting all of those children that may be impoverished. I’ll go ahead and tell you a story that I’ve brought up here before because this guy’s childhood is a perfect refutation of the idea that this world is fair. A friend of mine that probably doesn’t like me anymore (but that’s besides the point) was a very abused and molested and uncared-for child. I obviously don’t know if he or his siblings were children of rape, but I do know that his father was a very violent and quite frankly evil man, so it wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case. Regardless, my friend’s mother had him and a few other kids and did her best to raise them but ultimately my friend ended up homeless as a child for a while before finally ending up in a safe home. Now the point of all that shit is, you can’t demand all life be brought into this world and claim that all life is precious and then not support and call for programs that make life somewhat less shitty for the children that you demand be born.
I guess yeah, I’m in favor.
Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?
I don’t care about birth control as I already alluded to. With sex-ed, I doubt any education beyond what is already in highschool health classes would even be benefical. And I don’t know what you want me to say about the welfare state.
I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.
What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.
Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.
I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.
But they’re all more-or-less the same to you. I’m pointing out how absurd it is to compare these situations.
Aborting at eight months is of course a shittier thing to do. They are different situations. But I was simply discussing what I think counts as murder. I can’t say, “both situations are murder, but the five-week fetus is a bit less murder.”
To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.
There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.
Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?
And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.
That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman.
It was your own words and you still say it’s murder so I don’t think it’s that out of context.
You’re still confusing the point I was making. I’m talking about what I consider to be murder. The extraneous circumstances that may make the murder more or less morally sound don’t make a difference to the fact that I believe it is murder. When you referenced me calling unrelated arguments about the abortion issue ‘strawmen’ you phrased it in a way to clearly paint me in a bad moral light for not sympathizing with pregnant rape victims. Rape victims are not strawmen in the general abortion debate. Referencing rape situations, or any other non-medical circumstance, when I am simply discussing what I define as murder, is a strawman argument. That’s why I said “anything else.”
Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.
It doesn’t confuse anything, it just shows that there’s an obvious difference from case to case. Not all abortions are the same.
And I have never argued to the contrary, which shows that you are still either confusing what I’m talking about.
Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.
Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”
It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.
Like I said, who knows if that law was still supposedly applicable post-Christ. There were a lot of religious old testament laws that had extremely harsh punishments for sinful actions.
I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.
What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.
Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.
I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.
To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.
There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.
And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.
That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman. Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.
Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.
Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”
I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.
The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.
Too many frames.
Seinfeld, Frasier, Dinosaurs, Everbody Loves Raymond, Home Improvement. Probably in that order, greatest to least of the best, and I can’t think of anything else right now.
Only one of those is great…or even good.
Mind elaborating?
Frasier and Dinosaurs are legitimately fantastic shows, and Raymond is pretty close to them.
Seinfeld, Frasier, Dinosaurs, Everbody Loves Raymond, Home Improvement. Probably in that order, greatest to least of the best, and I can’t think of anything else right now.
Okay. That’s what I was asking him about.
Aside from the obviously more dated CGI elements that crop up here and cover the screen there, I think TPM is a gorgeous looking movie. Not as good looking as any of the OT, but it certainly feels like a stylistic continuation of those. I hate it and love it at the same time. Nostalgia Goggles are a wonderful thing.
My nostalgia for AOTC is greatly diminished by how awful it is, so I’m less inclined to return to it, and I have no nostalgia for ROTS because I didn’t get to see it until I was about 10 years old and I was sorely disappointed, so it’s my least favorite.
Eventually I’m gonna have to binge them, just for the memes.
The wiki pages for fundamentalism and evangelicalism. It said that the defining traits are belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ, which if you don’t believe in I’m hard pressed to find where the Christianity lies. And I’m no stranger to diversity in beliefs among Christians. I was responding generally because DE was referencing a generalization.
I’m not keen on literalism though. Not everything written in the books of the Bible should be taken at face value, especially in this era with the translations we have. There are so many metaphors that it’s sometimes hard to tell.
The wiki pages discussing those things seem to be describing things that are inherent to Christian beliefs, so what kind of Christianity do you understand? Unless you’re referring to literalism?
Have I mentioned I don’t “get” conservative Christianity? 'Cause I really don’t.
Out of curiosity, could you define that? Google don’t give me a very definite answer.
Most of what I see is just talking about politically conservative Christians, but there’s a Wikipedia disambiguation with a few different movements listed, so I’m just curious what’s being referred to.
Have I mentioned I don’t “get” conservative Christianity? 'Cause I really don’t.
Out of curiosity, could you define that? Google don’t give me a very definite answer.
Hmmm…you believe different than I do? Ok, you’re going to be tortured forever after you die.
Oh, and that other guy who led a terrible life, raped, robbed, murdered, kicked puppies and pushed down old ladies, but accepted Jesus as his savior right at the end? He’s a better person than you are.
Nah, doesn’t seem like a shitty belief system at all.
A guy who accepts getting saved at the end isn’t gonna fool God if he’s not sincere. And if he’s sincere? Why wouldn’t that matter?
I mean how would such a guy have heard of Jesus anyway if not for someone else taking time to point it out to him. Someone who noticed he was on a destructive path and took a lot of effort to help him onto a better one?
I don’t know why you’d be against the idea that even a horrible person could find a way to redeem themselves. I mean can criminals be rehabilitated or not? Should we lock people up forever on a 1st offense? Or should we give them other chances?
A rapist and murderer who legitimately gives his life to Christ is less of a sinner than me.
I’d just like to say that this is not really how it works. The rapist/murderer is not less of a sinner than you. He did not sin less than you just because that sin is forgiven. But, he will be saved rather than you, because he gave complete recognition to the person who bought him the choice to ask for forgiveness.
And it’s still just as repulsive of an idea.
If you say so. I suppose I better just move on with my repulsive and shitty life, though maybe I could better my reputation by murdering a few unborn children with no medical issues.
^Yes.
*makes indescribable Tim Allen noise*
Hmmm…you believe different than I do? Ok, you’re going to be tortured forever after you die.
Oh, and that other guy who led a terrible life, raped, robbed, murdered, kicked puppies and pushed down old ladies, but accepted Jesus as his savior right at the end? He’s a better person than you are.
Nah, doesn’t seem like a shitty belief system at all.
A guy who accepts getting saved at the end isn’t gonna fool God if he’s not sincere. And if he’s sincere? Why wouldn’t that matter?
I mean how would such a guy have heard of Jesus anyway if not for someone else taking time to point it out to him. Someone who noticed he was on a destructive path and took a lot of effort to help him onto a better one?
I don’t know why you’d be against the idea that even a horrible person could find a way to redeem themselves. I mean can criminals be rehabilitated or not? Should we lock people up forever on a 1st offense? Or should we give them other chances?
A rapist and murderer who legitimately gives his life to Christ is less of a sinner than me.
I’d just like to say that this is not really how it works. The rapist/murderer is not less of a sinner than you. He did not sin less than you just because that sin is forgiven. But, he will be saved rather than you, because he gave complete recognition to the person who bought him the choice to ask for forgiveness.