jimshiz Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Did anybody watch the DEAD ZONE on USA Sunday July 9? The opening scene is a "preacher" interested in politics speaking about "tolerance". John Smith, the main character, points to a crowd holding up "Abortion = Murder" signs and says something to the effect of "not everybody is getting the message on tolerance". Can somebody tell me how believing that abortion is murder is an example of intolerance? In the same show, a TV reporter refers to a White Power, neo-Nazi group as a "right wing" group. Is a White Power, neo-Nazi group really a "right wing" group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Is a White Power, neo-Nazi group really a "right wing" group? 720534[/snapback] Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Did anybody watch the DEAD ZONE on USA Sunday July 9? White Power, neo-Nazi group as a "right wing" group. Is a White Power, neo-Nazi group really a "right wing" group? 720534[/snapback] Here's an article of the kkk being allowed to protest the war at gettysburg. The newer tougher cindy sheehan http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148560 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Is a White Power, neo-Nazi group really a "right wing" group? 720534[/snapback] The internet is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 The internet is your friend. 720664[/snapback] The internet is for porn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Franklin Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Did anybody watch the DEAD ZONE on USA Sunday July 9? 720534[/snapback] Is this a question about the political maelstorm caused by a Stephen King book adapted for a highly acclaimed USA Network? And you think Liberals have thin skin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubes Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 The internet is for porn 720672[/snapback] Yes, but that's a given! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Did anybody watch the DEAD ZONE on USA Sunday July 9? Can somebody tell me how believing that abortion is murder is an example of intolerance? 720534[/snapback] When it's based on a religious belief, as it was portrayed in the tv show, it's an example of intolerance because you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others who do not have the same beliefs. It goes back to the premise that your religion is the right one and everyone else's beliefs are wrong. I would classify that as intolerance. I don't know if you're old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, but back then poorer women had no option to get safe abortions and many ended up dying, while the rich were able to travel to places where abortion was legal and safe. People convieniently forget why there was a need to make abortion legal, because women were having them and it being illegal wasn't stopping the ones who wanted an abortion. It was only making it a life threatening decision for the ones without a lot of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 11, 2006 Author Share Posted July 11, 2006 When it's based on a religious belief, as it was portrayed in the tv show, it's an example of intolerance because you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on others who do not have the same beliefs. It goes back to the premise that your religion is the right one and everyone else's beliefs are wrong. I would classify that as intolerance. I don't know if you're old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, but back then poorer women had no option to get safe abortions and many ended up dying, while the rich were able to travel to places where abortion was legal and safe. People convieniently forget why there was a need to make abortion legal, because women were having them and it being illegal wasn't stopping the ones who wanted an abortion. It was only making it a life threatening decision for the ones without a lot of money. 720953[/snapback] So, you're for murder? I did not know murder was a religious based thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 So, you're for murder? I did not know murder was a religious based thing. 721077[/snapback] It's almost entirely a religious-based thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 So, you're for murder? I did not know murder was a religious based thing. 721077[/snapback] Abortion isn't murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 So, you're for murder? I did not know murder was a religious based thing. 721077[/snapback] I'm against the murder of women based on their ability to buy safety. As for abortion is murder, that's your opinion. If it's based on a religious belief, then it's your right not to have an abortion. Trying to get others to follow your religious beliefs is intolerance. So you're for intolerance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 What if it is't based on religion? There are valid scientific facts that the baby is a unique human being. Athiests can be pro-life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Curious, are you pro-life guys pro-abortion in the event of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother? Would you sign on to the no exceptions abortions law in South Dakota? Reason being, most people are in favor of those exceptions -- but they in fact undermine the premise most pro-lifers use -- it's a life. Is the pregnancy less of a life if the woman has been forced into one of these ugly situations? If I were to accept the premise that yes, this is human life, I could not say the resulting fetuses were "less life" than any other. Yet, we understand that there's a certain trauma involved in carrying a baby where one of the parents was not at all complicit in bringing it into this world. So we're weighing one vs. the other here. Pro-lifers who aren't for no exceptions say, we want a say in WHEN these rules apply, and when they don't. Pro-choice folks, at least where I stand, say that it's an intense enough, wrenching decision as it is, and the government should not be in this part of people's lives. I am not in favor of abortion as a form of birth control, and I think it's an ugly, ugly thing, but it's reality. It will happen whether or not it is legal. The question is whether it will be safe, and whether a ban will result in a whole lot more unwanted children in our system, and on the social program rolls (which of course most on the right would also like to cut, putting these already disadvantaged kids in a nice double-bind). What all this has to do with Stephen King and the USA Network, I'm unsure, but I'd love to hear a response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 There are valid scientific facts that the baby is a unique human being. 721181[/snapback] I don't think anyone's arguing a baby isn't a unique human being. Point to one credible peer-reviewed scientific research paper that demonstrates precisely when a fetus becomes a unique human being. Hell, let's make it easier on you: give me a scientific description of precisely when life begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Curious, are you pro-life guys pro-abortion in the event of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother? Would you sign on to the no exceptions abortions law in South Dakota? Reason being, most people are in favor of those exceptions -- but they in fact undermine the premise most pro-lifers use -- it's a life. Is the pregnancy less of a life if the woman has been forced into one of these ugly situations? If I were to accept the premise that yes, this is human life, I could not say the resulting fetuses were "less life" than any other. Yet, we understand that there's a certain trauma involved in carrying a baby where one of the parents was not at all complicit in bringing it into this world. So we're weighing one vs. the other here. Pro-lifers who aren't for no exceptions say, we want a say in WHEN these rules apply, and when they don't. Pro-choice folks, at least where I stand, say that it's an intense enough, wrenching decision as it is, and the government should not be in this part of people's lives. I am not in favor of abortion as a form of birth control, and I think it's an ugly, ugly thing, but it's reality. It will happen whether or not it is legal. The question is whether it will be safe, and whether a ban will result in a whole lot more unwanted children in our system, and on the social program rolls (which of course most on the right would also like to cut, putting these already disadvantaged kids in a nice double-bind). What all this has to do with Stephen King and the USA Network, I'm unsure, but I'd love to hear a response. 721190[/snapback] Safe, legal and rare. Just my opinion. You cannot build specific exceptions into a law, because no list is going to cover every circumstance. Keep the government out of it. They are already intrusive enough in people's lives. There is no need for more. As far as the murder angle, it depends on when you consider the fetus to be human. Is it a living entity? Yup. Is is human, debatable. Is abortion killing a living thing? Yup. Is it murder (killing a human being is my definition, legal definition may be different)? Depends on your definition of "human." Personally, I do not know enough to make the determination of when it is human. Maybe when the heart takes its first beat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 So you're for intolerance? 721160[/snapback] Yes, I am intolerant of many, many things. Murderers, rapists, terrorists, criminals; or probably more accurate I am intolerant of crime. I know it happens, but it does not mean that we have to look the other way because we can't get it down to zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimshiz Posted July 12, 2006 Author Share Posted July 12, 2006 Curious, are you pro-life guys pro-abortion in the event of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother? Would you sign on to the no exceptions abortions law in South Dakota? 721190[/snapback] I don't know the details of the abortion law in South Dakota. But, here is my general stance on the scenarios you offered: - rape => not for abortion; it's still a life - incest => not for abortion; it's still a life; however there may be medical reasons that would put the mother at risk, in which case it would be OK - threat to the life of the mother => abortion is OK in this case because of "double-effect"; your main goal is to save the life of the mother, not terminate the life of the fetus It will happen whether or not it is legal. The question is whether it will be safe, and whether a ban will result in a whole lot more unwanted... 721190[/snapback] I know it is not exactly the same, but if you use this logic in cases of other "crimes" or "moral questions", the result might not be as acceptable by some. Here's a quick, not exactly related or analogous example: Illegal aliens from Mexico will cross over into the deserts of Arizona. Without water, many of them will die. Do we put watering holes out there to help them commit a crime? Or do we make it known that they will not find water to deter them from committing the crime? The result in this example may be a whole lot more unwanted dependents on the welfare system of the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Trying to get others to follow your religious beliefs is intolerance. I'm dumbfounded nobody has called you on this. People have the right to express their views, religious or otherwise. They have the right to try to get others to follow these views, and have had this right ever since the Bill of Rights was enacted. Those who would chip away at this freedom of expression are the ones guilty of intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 it's still a life 721639[/snapback] Prove. It. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts