I'm not too sure on the plot, but I believe it supposedly takes place between Eps. III and IV. Obviously one can't help but wonder why AT-ATs are attacking Hoth while we are also dealing with the first Death Star in construction around Geonosis.
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
No, you didn't Perhaps it's your style, but I often feel when you write something, you tend to be condescending and belittling.
Just because I don't pepper my posts with apologies and claims I have the utmost respect for your religion, doesn't mean I intend to be condescending or belittling. I am simply calling ducks ducks. Any "belittling" things I have said have been factual weak points I was interested in hearing your response to, but as you said, that was not your intention for this thread, thus I overstepped.
And when you sound snappish ("Oh, you were sarcastic, which means you can't provide a real answer"), it just sounds like you were overly offended by my innocent sarcasm and are resorting to criticism. Perhaps it's just the way you write, but on numerous occasions it feels like a "grumpy grump" response. If I misread you, I apologize.
I am not easily irritated and I am almost always in a good mood, you're reading a lot that isn't there into my posts.
As for "snappish", you were using sarcasm to mock/dismiss the train of thought I presented to you, sarcasm can be great fun when used at relevant times, but it is an extremely immature and really poor way to try to win/dismiss an opposing argument. I wasn't being snappish, I was simply pointing to the immature use of sarcasm.
Discussion between you and I don't get very far, because you have a tendency to bend it around and somehow make it about me. You've done this in the past. You also do it with other posters that voice opposite views from your own without apology or excessive tact, perhaps it is your form of lite "character assassination", by complaining that they have a massive stick up there ass, any pressure is off of you to continue the discussion, and you can walk away feeling like the bright and cheery always positive upstanding poster. Am I reading way too much into your posts and reactions with this assessment? Almost certainly. Obviously I am just being a "grumpy grump".
Geez, man, you're right, we never get far because you misinterpret me at every turn as well, whether you realize it or not. Have I truly avoided a perilous discussion at any point? Clearly no as you have pointed out in the abortion thread (yes, I'm bringing it up again, make sure you hang me for it). I responded with fervor and to excess in your opinion, but not without rational discussion, never resorting to personal attacks, and never shutting down because I couldn't handle the "walls of logic" (to quote a terribly missed former member here) people were throwing my way. I don't avoid what doesn't match my point of view. Here in this thread I've taken it head on. Have you actually read the past several pages?
And with other folks I've done the same? I've gotten even more irritated at walkingdork for his style, but I think we've generally worked things out and I understand his style. When he says offensive things, I generally don't get so offended. The only other person I didn't get along with was twooffour, and I don't know anyone who did. I did end a discussion with him while he had the last word, but that was because reasoning with him takes a whole different kind of patience that goes beyond trying to be logical or at least providing a different perspective. Please enlighten me if there is someone else I've gotten worked up over and couldn't handle in a mature fashion.
As for the timing of my sarcasm, did you even read the rest of the post? I actually answered your question to the best of my ability in the limited time I had at the moment, then went back to the beginning of my comment and added the sarcastic first sentence. It was literally the last thing I wrote before clicking "Post Reply." I did not dismiss your train of thought, but was trying to make light of the situation. It seems you took me completely in a way that was not intended. At that point I wasn't even irritated with you yet, though I thought your post had been a little diminutive. Go back, read the rest of the post, feel free to look at the links I provided, and if you feel those answers weren't satisfactory, please raise the issue again. I truly will go into greater depth to answer your questions, even though I don't even feel they were that well thought out. My point to it all was that I don't rely simply on that one point, but that I do consider 11 men who did not change their story as a rather reliable testimony that could hold up in court as at least a genuine and commonly shared belief among them. If you don't see it that way, I have no qualms with that.
Ultimately, yes you are reading too much into my posts. I don't intend what you continually assert. I've read many of your posts as well, and it seems like you get in tiffs fairly often. You are clearly an intelligent person and I respect you for many of your points, but I don't think I'm the only one who misinterprets you if your intentions are really not to be confrontational. And as for being a "grumpy grump," it was again an attempt at humor in reference to a certain OT.com member's ridiculous fan edit. Yes, I can be overly sensitive at times, but if you've truly read my posts and if you give me credit for what I do write, I am quite capable of handling a mature conversation and taking difficult issues head on, oft times at the expense of coming off as the upstanding poster. Please be a little more fair-minded in your assessment of me.
These are all valid points. I wish I had time to really explain, but I simply want to make two statements:
1) I have no dount that the Nephites were quite familiar with the importance of Bethlehem, as clearly there was a great deal of historic and messianic importance to the city. However, their familiarity with its actual location is quite understandable in my mind. Moreover, this chapter is a sermon delivered to people in a city that is rather new to the gospel of Christ by Alma, the leader of the Church at that time. It would be even more lamentable that they did not understand the messianic prophecies that Alma lays out for them. He speaks to them as if they are quite naive to the nature of the Christology already had among the Nephites, and he mentions that there was even some waywardness among the people. Such a people would likely be ignorant to the full significance of Bethlehem in my mind.
2) I appreciate your last statement about not trying to pick a fight, but I didn't even suspect it with you. I wish to make it clear that I don't detect any condescension in your tone, merely an effort to explain and possibly correct what you perceive to be in error. I can handle tough questions without a problem, but I don't appreciate what appears to be talking down. I got no such vibe from you.
No, you didn't Perhaps it's your style, but I often feel when you write something, you tend to be condescending and belittling. Thus, I detect an "irritable mood." And when you sound snappish ("Oh, you were sarcastic, which means you can't provide a real answer"), it just sounds like you were overly offended by my innocent sarcasm and are resorting to criticism. Perhaps it's just the way you write, but on numerous occasions it feels like a "grumpy grump" response. If I misread you, I apologize.
There is no smoke screen on my end. I gotta run, but of that I assure you. You can disagree with a person's actions, even if they are based on deeply felt instincts, without hating the person or believing they are hell-bound.
Akwat Kbrana said:
Darth Ender, I'm a bit curious about Alma 7:10, which seems to prophesy that the "Son of God" (presumably Jesus Christ) will be born in Jerusalem. Obviously, this constitutes at least an apparent contradiction with the Bible, which specifies the birth of Christ, both predictively and descriptively, as Bethlehem (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:1; Luke 2:4-7). I'm sure this has been addressed by LDS apologists before, but I'm curious as to what your take on it is. Thanks.
10 And behold, he shall be aborn of Mary, at bJerusalem which is the cland of our forefathers, she being a dvirgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and econceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.
"The land" can mean region. Bear in mind that this verse is also speaking to a group of people that had not been in the Holy Land for hundreds of years. They were probably not familiar with the geography, but knew where Jerusalem was.
Bethlehem was a suburb of Jerusalem, very close (I think no more than 5 mi.). If I were to tell you I served my mission in Alpharetta, Cumming, Kennesaw, Griffin, and Buchanan, you'd probably not know what I was referring to. But if I told you I served my mission in Atlanta, you'd probably have a better idea.
I don't have the exact verses at the ready, but bear in mind that the Old Testament calls Jerusalem "The city of David." Luke 2 also calls Bethlehem "the city of David."
And yes, this has been addressed extensively by apologists as well and doesn't bother me in the least.
EDIT: Sorry this looks so ugly. It's what happens when you copy and paste.
CP3S said:
darth_ender said:
Aw, crap! You're right! I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob* How could you!?!
...
I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else. But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own. The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source. My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.
Good use of mocking sarcasm as a defense. If you're just going to get on the defensive when you can't answer something, this thread probably wasn't a very good idea. I felt my question was legit and fair.I am not sure why you think I am easily and quickly dismissing your eleven men without real thought or research of my own (other than the obvious answer: because my conclusions are different than yours). I grew up in an area with a very high population of Mormons, my closest friends growing up were Mormons, and just about every neighbor and friend I ever had from childhood to my early teens tried to convert me every chance they got. I've studied with many Mormons and spent a fair deal of my own time reading about their history and about their leaders. It is a subject I've always found really interesting, and I've spent a good deal of time in it.
There is so much objective tangible evidence that raises some very large exclamation points such as the Book of Abraham written in hieroglyphs really being Egyptians texts having nothing to do with Abraham, or the history of the Americas as presented in the Book of Mormon being entirely at odds with historical evidence, or all scientific data showing the Native Americans originated from Asia and were most certainly not descendents of the Hebrews (I'll definitely take some time to look into the case you mentioned), it is kind of hard for me to even begin to think in a way that would make all these inconsistencies and lose ends fit together.
I know Mormon apologists have an answer for everything point I could possibly bring up, and all are explanations they are 100% confident in, but all those answers have one very large factor in common: they all start in the middle and work their way outward. They all start with the conclusion, and build a circle of semi-plausible explanations and potential evidences around that conclusion; rather than looking at the evidences and following them to the most plausible conclusions. So no, I am not impressed with Mormon academics, while they may not be dismissive of contrary evidence, they certainly don't treat it fairly.
A non-Mormon and entirely non-biased observer isn't going to look at the same pieces of evidence as a Mormon and come to the same conclusions. No one else is going to look at what remains of the Joseph Smith Papyri, translate it, and say, "Yeah, see, if he translated these in a "nontraditional" way, they could say things totally different than what real Egyptologists have found them to say, therefore we can conclude that the Book of Abraham is totally legit". Only someone starting at, "These have to be legit, but the evidence clearly indicates otherwise... so how?" would come to these kinds of conclusions.
I have to say that for someone so *tough*, most of our conversations have at times startled me with your over sensitivity. It was a joke. Geez, man!
As for your question, it is truly a question easily broadened to all religions. Logically there are things unexplained and one has to rely on faith. the last paragraph you quote was supposed to catch the gist of that. If you do not believe in faith in the unexplainable, then why should I have to try to prove it to you?
As for the witnesses, my links were supposed to address your questions and provide more information on their character including quotes from their contemporaries. If you took the time to read them, it probably would have answered your questions. I can address your very specific questions, but I'm already limited on time if you haven't noticed my decrease in activity on this board. If you really, really want answers to the hypotheses you provided (which really are weak considering you know very little of the circumstances of these individuals), then I will do whatever research is necessary to at least provide an explanation, which I'm sure you'll quickly dismiss. But just to get you started, I believe you mentioned that one reason they never denied their testimonies was because of their fear of losing influence or alienating those that followed them. I actually think I already answered this, but I suspect your irritable mood may have interfered with you noticing: these men had already lost their standing with the majority, or even all members of the Church. Many had no social pressure to return, and likely would have faced more pressure to denounce what they had seen. But none did. That was my point. I'll be more specific if you require in a future post, which may not be for a few days as I really have a horrendous week ahead of me, tying me up even on Saturday and Sunday.
Just remember, I didn't start this thread so I could prove my church correct or so someone else could prove me incorrect. I started it to answer questions about my faith. Feel free to question why. Feel free to press me a bit hard. But know that I admit now that I will never prove my faith as correct, and if you want to take the time to be a bit demeaning (you mean that's the only reason you believe in your church???), you are missing the intended spirit of the conversation.
Please don't be upset, but just keep in mind that I feel your intentions were somewhat belittling. That is why I responded with playful sarcasm.
Sorry, I know I haven't gotten my impersonations. You can download something here:
http://www.4shared.com/zip/JbpUYPen/Impersonations.html?
I do indeed have a Palpatine impersonation there. I don't even remember what I said, but you can try it, and I will try to get you something better soon. I'm really so busy I just can't keep up with everything.
I wish to make something clear, since this was obviously mirroring my thread a bit and I recently posted something on the topic: I hold no malice towards anyone who is homosexual. I make a clear distinction between the morals I expect of people who believe as I do and the morals of those who don't. While I personally oppose homosexuality and believe it to be a sin, I also don't judge you or anyone at all and do not presume to know how God will account for such things. I've had gay roommates, a gay relative, and I'm currently in a clinical rotation with a gay nursing student (we're the only two males in this rotation, and I have to change into scrubs in front of him). While I admit to some awkwardness at the thought that he might find me attractive (though I can't blame him, 'cause I find me so attractive ;) , I don't judge him or consider him on the Hellbound Express. I don't mean to derail anything, but rather to assure you that I think you're pretty swell, even if you are mocking my thread (I'm not sure).
Aw, crap! You're right! I had nothing to go on but a flimsy story about 11 men, and you threw it out the window! *sob* How could you!?!
Actually, you can come up with hypothetical situations to justify it, but in reality for these men, it would have been easier on their lives to deny it in many cases. In the early years, it was far easier to be a Mormon, and when they left the Church, they lost their positions of authority. Those who returned did so in spite of no reinstatement. They could have lived quiet lives apart from anything Church related and probably have been happier. If they had recanted, most would have lost nothing, and possibly gained something.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Character
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Eight_witnesses
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Other_Book_of_Mormon_witnesses
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Witnesses/Recant
This site is obviously pro-Mormon, and therefore will provide a slanted view. But you would be impressed with Mormon academics--they are not simple, superficial, and dismissive of contrary evidence. Let me give an example: the Book of Mormon has been criticized due to the fact that we believe the Native Americans have Hebrew blood (a bit of an oversimplification, but to make it clear). A fellow named Rod Meldrum has set up seminars and websites devoted to his research that "proves" that Indian blood is indeed quite saturated with Hebrew genetics. And most LDS scholars reject his claims, in spite of how hunky dory and promising they might sound. They question his methodology, knowledge of the subject, and conclusions on that and a number of points, because they do not believe it holds up to scientific scrutiny.
There is in fact a surprising amount of tangible evidence that often is unconvincing to many outside the church, but is quite fascinating to members.
But in reality, I wish to make it clear. This thread is not a "convert OT.com to Mormonism" thread. This is an educational thread. I am not going to produce proof that the God or Christ or Joseph Smith or this church is real to you or anyone else. But to me, the belief I have does not rely on these 11 men you so easily and quickly dismissed without real thought or research of your own. The evidence I have I believe comes from a higher source. My testimony is based on far more evidence, both scientific and spiritual, than you give me credit for.
Ronster, I will say it again: THE VOTE IS NON-BINDING. It is a means of suggesting a consensus to the editors. Perhaps GoodMusician wants to compose his own piece. Perhaps we'll end up keeping Lapti Nek. Perhaps we'll find some obscure but fitting piece. It's okay.
As for the everyone else, I hope we can do what was joked about, that is get the actual editors to hammer out specifics. I'm going to try to coordinate a sort of process where they determine who will do what and what can actually be done.
TMBTM, the plot has been kept largely intact in part for that reason; some things might be too difficult to drastically alter. Believe it or not, in spite of my lack of editing skills, I've put a great deal of thought into what material we have available and what means could potentially be used to implement the script.
Shepard, I try very hard to bear pacing of the script in mind. We are largely sticking to the original plot with only relatively minor alterations, and hopefully that keeps much of the pacing similar. If we are making more drastic alterations (i.e. Dagobah and the funeral pyre), I consider very thoroughly how to do that without jarring the feel of the whole movie.
Wish I could write more, but I have to run.
Maybe you could incorporate this song or some other Spanish song that prominently uses the word "camino" ("road" or "I walk") in it. Perhaps when Obi-wan meets first walks into the building, it could be playing in the background.
darth_ender said:
darth_ender said:
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
none said:
Red Wampas should be shot by a Rebel.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
darth_ender said:
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
none said:
Red Wampas should be shot with a Canon Rebel.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
TV's Frink said:
DuracellEnergizer said:
none said:
Red Wampas should be shot with a Canon.
Fixed.
Fixed.
Fixed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_plates#Returning_the_plates
There are second hand stories, but the primary story from Joseph Smith simply describes the situation as having returned the plates to the same angel who instructed him how to get them in the first place. See the link for further reading.
"Pffftt...Convenient timing! Dum dum dum dum dum!" Yes, of course, good ol' South Park to point out what of course no critic had noticed in the prior 170+ years of my church's existence. We have plenty of reasons to justify why we believe the plates were actual, real objects. Joseph Smith had 11 official witnesses of the plates, not one of whom ever denied having seen the plates in spite of the fact that many became estranged from Smith and the church. Most of those stayed within the movement, often joining some schismatic group, and two returned to the main branch. This singular fact is strong evidence of its authenticity, as those opposed to the church or its leadership had a wonderful opportunity to discredit a key element of the Church's doctrine. Even those who never came back to Mormonism in any form still maintained their original testimony.
There is a site called MouseBits.com that is similar in nature to myspleen, but it’s open registration there…no invitations required. There they collect all things related to Disney theme parks and torrent them. Well today, the same Martin who posted the Ultimate Star Tours Tribute that is mentioned in the original Star Tours thread, collected all Star Tours 2 related footage off the Internet and created a Star Tours 2 preservation. It’s not quite DVD quality, but it’s all very good, and it’s all the 2D version so it’s not warped looking without the 3D glasses. This includes all locations and interludes, so every possible destination can be watched on this video. It’s really cool, and you should check it out.
Wow, chill Ron. I admit the vote was flawed, but that doesn't make it binding either. I've tried to follow the general will of the people in the script, but at the same time, we can't make everything work.
For Han to deliberately hit the rocket pack, it may take little more than some line changing. It need not be anything drastic.
And ultimately, none of this has ever been binding. I've been the script writer who tries to follow the will of the people. And the editors have to actually implement the ideas, with us trusting their discretion. Many things may not work out as well as we'd hoped, and things will likely change before the movie is completed. This is all just a guide for a first attempt at this, and hopefully many other opportunities to do this will come.
I can break it all down if you want...actually it may be easier to just save screenshots of the results, but I can't do that right now. It was actually quite popular, but I don't think it fully passed based on my criteria. Truthfully, I think the survey was much easier, but next time I need to break each question down further. This style seemed to skew votes quite a bit. I need to find a free service that doesn't limit me to 20 questions. But you know what, in the end the votes are guides and are not binding. We may go ahead and include some drumming in there anyway. That will ultimately be GoodMusician's call, but we can encourage him :)
The voting results are in!!!
The ‘Y/N’ and ‘select one answer’ questions were easy to interpret, as it was only necessary to pick the most popular item. But the multiple selection questions were trickier, particularly since they weren’t even all the same in nature. For instance, most people might want some sort of change, but the biggest single item was a vote for no such change. And every single item might end up with less than half the voters voting for it. How do we determine what is used? As a general rule, this was my strategy: a vote for no change at all must have at least half the voters select it (12 out of 23). If the no change vote doesn’t make it, then I look at the most popular items and include the top items until we get over the magic number of 12. For instance, if 5 people voted for one change in a category, 5 in another, 3 in another, and 1 in another, I would include the two 5 votes and the 3 vote, but exclude the 1 vote. All items of 12 or more are automatic winners.
1. - Jaitea
2. - Aalenfae
3. - Mrebo
4. - jonathan7
5. - GoodMusician
6. - Ronster
7. - timdiggerm
8. - MrInsaneA
9. - ShepardCommander
10. - DominicCobb
11. - Johannus
12. - Angel
13. - fishmanlee
14. - JLB_Tosche
15. - Captain Antilles
16. - emanswfan
17. - SS4DarthPayne
18. - Wexter
19. - xhonzi
20. - Vladius
21. - Bingowings
22. - daneditor
23. - darth_ender
1. All voters are listed above (in reverse order of when they voted)
2. Select one answer. There was a tie between Return of the Jedi: The Collaborative Edit and choosing a name at a later point. For now we will keep it as Return of the Jedi: The Collaborative Edit unless something better comes up.
3. Y/N. Most people did want to make further alterations to the script, but I’m not sure if the question was clear given the nature of the following votes.
4. Y/N. Most did not want the TIE bombers to bomb the Ewoks and start a forest fire.
5. Multiple selection. First example of the difficulty of interpreting multiple selections. 9 people wanted no Eclipse, and that was the single most popularly-voted item. But that means that 14 people did want to see the Eclipse, but didn’t agree on the best way to show it. Therefore I don’t feel justified in not showing it. With 7 votes, we will show the Eclipse escorted by Imperial Star Destroyers which remain while the Eclipse leaves. Next most popular was having the Eclipse leave Coruscant, so we will be showing both. Since that was 6 votes, the total is now 13, and the rest I don’t feel were popular enough to keep (or conflicted, i.e. showing the Eclipse arriving alone at the Death Star).
6. Multiple selection. This was tricky because people voted to use Ronster’s sandstorm, but I’m not sure if everyone understood that it was Ronster’s sandstorm scenario; I think most figured we were referring to the ordinary deleted sandstorm scene, which is already included. I’m not sure how to handle this one due to the confusion, but since all items were at least fairly popular, I will see if there is some way I can include something while maintaining the pace of the movie as we’ve already had it go.
7. Multiple selection. Tied with 13 votes, both minimizing Salacious Crumb’s behavior and replacing Lapti Nek with a grungier song one the vote. Others came close and may get incorporated (specifically making Jabba’s palace darker), but they did not truly win, so I’m not guaranteeing anything.
8. Multiple selection. This one was easy as 17 people voted for no removal of siblings and no Han death.
9. Multiple selection. A large majority voted for no probe droid or showing of Imperial forces turning on each other.
10. Multiple selection. The only winner in the Sarlacc execution scene is having 3PO and R2 fall directly onto the skiff.
11. Select one. Sad but true, 13 people voted for no reference to Bothans. I take this to mean removing all references made by Mon Mothma (might be a little tricky), or also just leaving it as vague references (which I should have made as a separate voting item, but whatever). So we will not be filming any Bothan material.
12. Select one. 15 people voted for no other type of alternate opening either. Thus, the opening as in the most recent script is what we will keep, with no additional scenes.
13. Y/N. People voted for no Duel of the Fates. I voted yes on this, so I’m a bit sad, but that’s what we’ll do.
14. Select one. Again, people were all over the place with what to do with Boba Fett. But the winner (and with only 6 votes) is making the slight change to have Han deliberately hit Fett’s jetpack. Unless I can figure out some cool way to incorporate Fett on Endor in a showdown with Han (also popular with 4 votes, even with no suggested means on how to accomplish this), I guess we’ll just keep it simple. I forgot to include an option of removing him altogether, but in the past we voted to keep him anyway.
15. Select one. I should have set this one up differently to make it clearer what people wanted as well. It should have been a multiple selection and/or possibly split into two questions to determine the actor and whether Anakin’s ghost should be at the fire or the threesome. But again in a close vote people voted for Anakin to be present at the funeral pyre, and for Sebastian Shaw to be the actor.
16. Select one. Barely winning is the vote to keep it as in the current script, just coming out above Johannus’s extended opening. If folks think of a really viable way to extend the Dagobah material, I may include it in the script, but I don’t see it as that feasible anyway with existing material and looks too much like ESB (even if it comes from a deleted scene).
17. Select one. This one is tricky because the black shuttle and the shuttle with the Imperial logo both won, garnering 8 votes. I guess I’ll just have to decide which I personally prefer when I update the script, but I’m not even sure which one I like best. It was a tough item for me to vote on :)
18. Multiple selection. Barely beating the none vote, people voted for fishmanlee’s altered sunset. We also have another sunset at our disposal from Angel, but folks clearly want a prettier sky, so we’ll include one or the other.
19. Y/N. A very big winner was the inclusion of more aliens in the background when possible, both at the Rebel briefing, and if possible, also on Endor.
20. Multiple selection. The winner here (and barely) was having the Emperor’s shuttle take off from Coruscant and dock with his star destroyer.
George R. Binks (Jar Jar's dad)--definitely helped!
Ziggy Stardust said:
In this thread you can talk about procrastination.
Let me go get a snack first though.
tl;dr
fishmanlee said:
DF Shadow said:
Ric must be in this..........maybe he could react to the explosion in some way."We didnt hit it!"
Darn, you beat me to it :D
I suspect we will not get any more votes today, meaning we have a total of 23 voters. A good turnout. I will keep it up till tomorrow, just in case, and will report then. Things turned out really well. I truly hope our effects team is still interested and up to the challenge!
EDIT: I should add that interpreting the data in the format I selected may be trickier than I expected, particularly in the questions with multiple choices. I didn't really think of the implications of the format. I'll explain later.
Mrebo said:
To illustrate my view that what is important is where one's views are anchored on this topic.
Ugh. I hate this topic, though I feel more strongly about it than most any other. I just know how these "friendly" discussions tend to go. But here I go, jumping back in when I'm trying to actually spend less time at this site.
From your article:
“Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.
[...]
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.”
Truly, their position is justified, if we accept the premise of justifiable abortion at all. What gives a born child any more right to life than a fetus? And that's the thing--it's not a slippery slope fallacy; it's a slippery slope! Really, when we start questioning whether a human has attained personhood or not and use that as a means of justifying abortion, where do we really draw that line? It's only a matter of convenience in the end. It's far too arbitrary. Perhaps we will one day be capable of saving the majority of developing children no more than 10 weeks gestational age. Would we move the age of personhood to that point? Perhaps we will identify the precise age when a child can be considered sentient and fully self-aware (not truly complete until 4-5 years of age, based on our understanding); should we move the legal age for "abortions" up to 4 years of age?
It's not just a matter of my faith in God; it's a matter of my faith in humanity and the sacredness of human life. My values have changed greatly over my life, where I am more accepting of many things than my parents and the majority of my church are. Heck, I oppose homosexuality just as I oppose adultery, but I have a hard time justifying illegalizing gay marriage for the same reasons that I couldn't justify illegalizing adultery. But I simply cannot ever see myself changing my mind on abortion.
I teach my sons to respect the ants around our yard and not to kill them. Many liberals are completely in favor of the rights of animals, creatures who don't even have a chance at gaining personhood. Why, oh why do we find the life of an embryo or fetus (terms that in many ways dehumanize what is really a developing child) so relatively meaningless?
I know I can be long-winded in this topic, so I'll stop with one last thought: I do sympathize with mothers who did not intend to get pregnant. It is a scary thing, it causes changes to one's body and alters her life forever. But I see no reason for her ability to choose to be so much more important than the child's. I am pro-choice: choose not to have sex unless you're willing to have a child with that person.
