S
sharmin
Guest
This is true. And most of it goes unreported. I know a few women who were raped. Sadly, none of whom reported it.
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Are you saying that fetuses are incapable of feeling pain, or that all methods of abortion are painless? The former claim is clearly absurd unless you are talking about very early pregnancy, and the latter is also pretty hard to accept. I will grant that many abortions may involve no pain on the part of the child, but many others do.
On what basis do you define a fetus as “not a baby”? Do you think that location inside or outside the womb makes such a huge difference? Why?
I define a fetus as a baby because it is clearly an individual human being at a very early stage of development, which is surely the standard definition of a baby. What fault do you find with this definition?
I think that’s too strong. And I say that as someone who opposed the invasion from the beginning. I think it did have to do with protecting Americans, but it was protecting them from a relatively distant threat and the methods used were unwarranted. I also think that liberating Iraqis was one factor in the decision to invade, although obviously it wasn’t enough on its own (or we would have invaded a lot of other countries as well).
You’re being unfair to survive. He/she is opposed to the torture at Guantanamo and explicitly said so. How would you like it if someone disbelieved your statement of opposition to abortion on the ground that you aren’t as strongly opposed to it as some of the rest of us are? (Actually I’m sure some folks will do that, but they will be acting unjustly. Don’t be like them.)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I define a fetus as a baby because it is clearly an individual human being at a very early stage of development, which is surely the standard definition of a baby. What fault do you find with this definition?
I think that’s too strong. And I say that as someone who opposed the invasion from the beginning. I think it did have to do with protecting Americans, but it was protecting them from a relatively distant threat and the methods used were unwarranted. I also think that liberating Iraqis was one factor in the decision to invade, although obviously it wasn’t enough on its own (or we would have invaded a lot of other countries as well).
Are you talking about this study? According to the MSNBC story (hardly a source known for its right-wing bias), the study is contested by at least one qualified researcher (I say “at least one” because they only cite one–that of course doesn’t mean that there is only one). I don’t think that one study constitutes anything remotely like proof, especially when there is every reason to suspect political bias both on the part of the researchers and of MSNBC.
According to the graph provided by the MSNBC in the article to which I linked, about 1.4% of abortions are performed in the last half of pregnancy (after week 20–I can’t find figures specifically by trimester). The Guttmacher Institute gives a figure of 1.1%. Also according to Guttmacher, there were about 45 million legal abortions between 1973 and 2005. Even if abortion is only murder in the last half of the pregnancy (which in my opinion is a fairly cautious claim), that’s 450,000 legal murders. In contrast, according to this website, there have been 1171 executions between 1976 and 2009. If this claim of a 68% error rate for capital punishment is true, that’s about 840 innocent people killed because of capital punishment as opposed to 450,000 killed by abortion in a comparable period.
I say all this because it seems to me that many people use the “most abortions are early” argument to trivialize the abortion issue. By putting the figures for late-term abortions up against the figures for possibly erroneous executions (leaving aside for the moment the possibility that either *all *abortions or *all *executions are murders), I’m trying to show that late-term abortion is still a statistically far more significant problem than capital punishment. And capital punishment is, in my opinion, a great evil, particularly given the high likelihood of error. I do not think that statistics tell the whole story, of course–human life can’t be quantified and the killing of one innocent person is a horrific act. But the killing of 8,000 innocent people a year is, by that very standard, hardly something to sneeze at.
I know that this wasn’t your main point, which was about fetal pain. But your posts generally show a certain disposition to downplay the horror of abortion, and I’m trying to convince you that this is not a coherent position if you grant that late-term abortions at least are gravely wrong.
I’m not sure where you got this. His brother Jeb is a Catholic, and some people have speculated that George W. may eventually convert, but that’s just speculation.
They are ignored or accepted by many, true. But not by everyone!
I’m not sure one can weigh things in this way, though I recognize that voters have to. I am a resident alien and thus do not vote. Had I voted, I would probably have held my nose and voted for Bush in 2004 solely because of abortion and embryonic stem cell research. But it would have been a close thing (I would have been more inclined to support a mainline Protestant like Obama or a non-Christian like Lieberman, but Kerry’s hypocrisy and moral blindness in claiming to believe that life begins at conception but refusing to act politically on the basis of this belief was just too much for me). In 2008, again, I would have voted Republican if I had voted (and I did talk my mother out of voting for Obama–she refused to vote Republican because of her aversion to Sarah Palin, so she didn’t vote at all), in that case because I thought that McCain was a fairly good choice, though far from perfect and much less appealing than Obama if only it weren’t for the abortion issue.
Edwin
J
JOHNONEVI
Guest
O, Dear,
Code:
Just one?
Johnonevi
C
Contarini
Guest
Hey, it’s a start
Originally distracted claimed that anyone who opposed Coulter wasn’t really a Christian (and distracted seems unfortunately to have returned to this line or something like it in recent posts).Edwin
A
akoso
Guest
Sorry… meant to write Christian. Thanks for picking it up on that.
A
akoso
Guest
A baby and a child have been born. A fetus has not. Therefore a fetus cannot be a child.
I don’t think that protecting Americans from a relatively distant threat and liberating Iraqis had anything to do with the motivating for invading Iraq. First, these were reasons presented after the fact. While trying to garner support for the invasion from the UN and the general public, the only reasons used were a connection to Al-qaeda (lie) and weapons of mass destruction (lie).
Secondly, even if these were the reasons, there are many countries that provided (and still provide) a greater threat to the US than Iraq - Iran, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Why were none of these countries invaded? Because they didn’t have the resources (i.e. oil) to make it worthwhile. Innocent people were killed and a free country was invaded for personal gain based on lies. That is something I have a very, very difficult time accepting.
I tried to include in every post that I am against abortion and think it’s awful, but at the same time, I’d rather things were presented accurately, which is what motivated my responses. “Abortion is the torture-killing of children” is a very incorrect statement. It is more generally accepted that abortions do not cause pain to the fetus, so it is not torture. Also, a fetus is not a child - it is a fetus. Therefore that statement is inaccurate. I don’t agree with abortion and don’t think that a fetus should be killed, whether it feels pain or not… but that doesn’t change the fact that the original statement is not accurately written.
Right. I meant to write Christian. Thanks.
No doubt it’s difficult to weigh the positives vs. the negatives, but one has to (like you said). I am very much against abortion and am glad that Bush’s policies were in line with that. But, I’m always very surprised how regularly I engage in conversations that go like this…
Me: I think GWB was a horrible leader.
Other: How can you say that?
Me: Because he receded our progress with the environment, he invaded a free country on lies and deceit and 1,000,000 people have died because of it, he encouraged torturing of innocent people against international laws at Guantanamo Bay, etc.
Other: Yeah, but he’s against abortion… so I think he did a good job.
That’s the reason that I say the negatives completely outweigh the positives. It isn’t just a body count (add up the number of people that died in Iraq, compare it to the number of abortions committed, the higher number is the worse offence). It’s a mentality. It’s a complete disregard for the rest of the world. It’s choosing to sacrifice his own countrymen so that he can avenge an arch-rival (Saddam) and get a bit richer. It’s being unbelievably hypocritical in so many foreign policies. It’s being as selfish as possible and thinking what he says goes, regardless of how it affects or impacts the rest of the world.
C
Contarini
Guest
We’re arguing semantics at this point.
Look at it this way: are you denying that a fetus is a human being? If it is, I fail to see what you are accomplishing by your claim “it’s not a child or a baby.” It seems to me that the only substantive reason to care one way or the other about the terminology is that “child” and “baby” affirm strongly that we are dealing with a human person, while “fetus” leaves the question open.
No. Liberating Iraq was presented as a reason, though relatively late in the game. Protecting Americans was obviously the reason prevented throughout.
We are talking past each other. These two points were what I meant by “protecting Americans.” Iraq’s capability to harm the U.S. in either of these ways (by weapons of mass destruction or by supporting terrorists) was fairly remote. The Bush administration presented these threats as being much more imminent than they were.
Given the universal disposition of humans to believe what they want to believe, and given my own lack of direct access to the evidence, I am unwilling to use the word “lie” for either of these claims.
Oil no doubt played a role, but I doubt that this was the only reason either. I think that this is reductionistic and unfair on the part of opponents of the war, and this kind of simplistic language has been partially responsible for turning off folks who might otherwise have been willing to listen to the case against the war. I have no reason to doubt that President Bush and many members of his administration were motivated by a sincere desire to protect America and to spread democracy. Attacking the motives of those with whom we disagree is a fruitless endeavor, because you can’t prove your point and you only make yourself look mean. When we set all that aside, the bankruptcy of the Bush Administration’s policies (even assuming the best of possible motives) becomes far more clearly evident).
As the MSNBC story indicated, this acceptance is far from general.
I continue to be baffled by what you think rides on this distinction. I have explained what I think rides on the use of the word “child” for a fetus. I know what point I’m making by my terminology. What point are you making by yours? Labels are not “right” or “wrong.” They are not set in stone. They are used to convey something, and I don’t know what you are conveying if not that the claim of the fetus to humanity is in some distinct, qualitative way less than that of a child who has been born.
Absolutely. I don’t entirely agree with all your characterizations of Bush, but over the past few years I’ve become increasingly disgusted with the general tone of conservative Republican politicians, and still more of their backers in the popular media (hence my participation in this thread!). During last year’s campaign there were times (particularly listening to Romney) when I felt as if the Republican party had been collectively possessed by Satan. The blindness to moral considerations, the deliberate whipping up of evil passions, the bold and unapologetic appeal to greed and fear and anger–it was chilling and terrifying. (Admittedly, I felt this primarily when listening to Romney, as I said, but then I would hear conservative Republicans hail him as the closest thing to a “real conservative” in the race.) The Republican candidates who didn’t engage in this–I’m thinking particularly of McCain and Huckabee (Ron Paul is in his own category, of course, and Giuliani seemed generally like a reasonable person but without much of a moral focus, and from my perspective his policies represented the worst of both worlds)–were vilified in the right-wing media as closet liberals and more and more had to conform themselves to the pattern of “conservatism” laid down by the likes of Rush and Coulter.
And then I would listen to Obama, and I would feel like melting into a puddle of liberal goo–and then he’d say something like “the question of when life begins is above my pay grade” and I’d go back to McCain with a sigh. Of course it was all academic, since I can’t vote. But I do live in this country and pay taxes, and I care about what happens!
Edwin
A
akoso
Guest
I already stated in several posts, including the first one you replied to, that I am against abortion and that a fetus is a human being. The only reason that this was brought up was because the statement “abortion is the torture-killing of children” is not true. It is that point in its entirety that I was arguing. You just jumped on board late.
If Iraq’s capability to harm the U.S. was by WMD or by supporting terrorists, then you must be able to prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt before using them as motives to invade a country and start a war. This isn’t a case of “well, we thought they had links to Al-qaeda… but they didn’t… thought they had WMD… guess not”… and yet still feeling justified in the actions.
If China invaded Mexico without any proof, without UN support, and later found out to be entirely wrong, I can guarantee you the world wouldn’t sit back and say “well, China thought they had reason to believe Mexico was a threat to their country… so they invaded their country, killed their leader, killed millions of their people… but it turns out they were wrong… oh well”.
If the true reason was to spread democracy and protect the U.S., then North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc. would have been invaded before Iraq. They all provided a bigger threat than Iraq (i.e. nuclear weapons, not just WMD), North Korean still has communism, and they all have a very strong hatred of the U.S.
North Korea was waving their hands in the air, asking for media attention, to show off their nuclear weapons. Why did Bush decide to pursue a country who “allegedly might have WMD” (and didn’t) vs. a country slapping him in the face with it? … if the true motives were protecting the American people and spreading democracy.
I think it’s more commonly accepted that a fetus does not have the accepted indicators of perception while an embryo. I’m not stating that it’s true or not, I’m just refuting a previous poster who referred to abortion as child torture.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16118385
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, and the point I’m concerned about is your unwillingness to use the word “child.” I can accept that whether or not a fetus feels pain, the point is too debatable (and at any rate wouldn’t apply to early abortions for sure) to make that characterization accurate. But I remain puzzled by what you think is at stake in the use of the word “child.” Many people do insist on fetus precisely in order to make it clear that in their view the fetus is not yet a human person. I am not accusing you of hidden motives–my best guess at this point is that you are understandably concerned about the over-the-top rhetoric of some prolife folks and are trying to be accurate in your terminology–but I would like to continue pushing you to consider why the word “child” is inappropriate, given that generally it is used to affirm the full humanity of the fetus and rejected by those who deny it.
As you were doing with regard to abortion, I am not arguing that the invasion was justified but that your rhetoric is excessive and thus self-defeating. The Bush administration adopted a policy of preventive warfare which I consider both foolish and immoral. But I have no reason to think that they did not honestly believe that this policy was in the best interests of the United States, and even that in this case it was in the best interests of the Iraqis.
One of the things I don’t understand about many of the discussions on Internet forums is how invested people seem to be in proving bad motives on the part of those of whose actions they disapprove. Given how hard this is to do, and how generally bad for one’s own soul it is to attempt, I don’t see why people are not more willing to accept that other people may honestly and sincerely believe and advocate things that are foolish and wrong.
The main reasons for not invading North Korea were that
- This would be much more difficult and bloody;
- It would run the risk of seriously antagonizing China; and
- The invasion of Iraq was part of a broader Bush-administration policy toward the Middle East specifically, which was identified as a particular threat given 9/11. I do not deny that oil played a very significant role in determining the administration’s focus on the Middle East. But I think it’s unwarranted to claim that oil was the sole factor.
Look at a map.
I am baffled by why you think Venezuela is such a threat. Are they anywhere close to having WMDs?
You seem to think that if the Bush administration was concerned to protect Americans and spread democracy, then they would have run down a checklist of tyrannical and threatening countries and attacked them in order of “badness.” That’s not how geopolitical decisions work. You are creating a false dichotomy between wholly idealistic and wholly cynical behavior. Reality is more complex. Of course there were geopolitical *and *economic reasons why Iraq was attacked first and not North Korea or Iran. But I really do mean first. I think that if the Bush administration or some other administration sharing its policies had continued in office for another four or eight or twelve years, we would eventually have seen an attack on Iran and maybe on North Korea as well. Which is a reason to be very, very glad that this didn’t happen and that the U.S. now has a president who doesn’t think that diplomacy is a euphemism for “do what we want or we will blow you to bits.”
Edwin
M
ML561
Guest
Grace and peace be with you. Regarding women who are raped–I was raped twice–both times by a stranger who invaded the place in which I lived. The first time was 27 years ago. The attacker was a serial rapist who was eventually caught. The second time was a year ago, another serial rapist who has not yet been arrested.
Rape itself is traumatic enough. But law enforcement authorities, doctors, and others still treat women who are rape victims as somehow at fault. No one would say a victim of robbery or burglary was somehow to blame, but still, women who have been raped are criticized.
The first time I was raped, I was a college student staying in a dormitory. I went out on a Saturday night for dinner and a few drinks with friends, then returned home. OK, so I was a bit tipsy–in fact, I laid down on my bed fully clothed (could not have been more modest. A long-sleeved blouse, a pair of jeans, a belt, a pair of shoes.) Certainly not clothes for seduction. Unfortunately, I had forgotten to lock the door to my room, and my roommate was out of town. The other students in the dorm had the habit of leaving the main doors propped open on weekends even though they were not supposed to . A stranger got in and apparently was looking for unlocked doors. I wont go into details about the rape…but I feel that I was raped twice for reporting it, as it caused trauma that lasted for years.
First, I went to a doctor on campus to be examined. I was treated with disdain. Then, I was subjected to endless questioning by campus police. They would come to my classroom or my place of work numerous times to take me to the station to give statements. I could not concentrate on schoolwork and my grades plummeted. Rumors circulated around campus that I was involved in drug dealing because the police were always after me. The university did nothing, All the faculty worried about was the reputation of the university. No one did anything to help. I finally withdrew from college for a time. After a year, I went back,. Comments were made to me…“You stayed there, you must have known the girl who was raped…” (I denied it, of course,), then a comment was made by a security guard on campus “We had a real AMUSING rape case this summen” and proceeded to relate my story. Cops were not only unsympathetic, they were snickering. Of course the cops took my clpthes that I wore during the rape. A year later, they came to my workplace, in full uniform, with the clothes, asking me if I wanted them back. (I burned the damn things.) So is it any wonder rapes go unreported? You are raped twice–first by the rapist, then by the system. (Oh, by the way, the rapist wrote a letter to police saying that I “Wanted it.”
I won’t go into detail about the second rape, but I wil say that after 27 years law enforcement and doctors seem to have learned something about how to treat victims. Not always–I lost a set of clothes and all my bedding–which is still in the evidence room after one year. I now carry pepper spray at all times and make sure my door is locked night and day.
I went to the press about the second rape, as I did not want anyone else to go through what I did. Oh, I forgot to mention that I was not exactly dressed as a seductress the second time, either. I simply made the mistake of not completely locking my door and having had a few peaceful beers by myself. Since when is that a crime? (I am 48 years old, no spring chicken. This serial rapist, who is still at large, has raped women as old as 67.) I needed to vent about this, and peace be with you all.
Rape itself is traumatic enough. But law enforcement authorities, doctors, and others still treat women who are rape victims as somehow at fault. No one would say a victim of robbery or burglary was somehow to blame, but still, women who have been raped are criticized.
The first time I was raped, I was a college student staying in a dormitory. I went out on a Saturday night for dinner and a few drinks with friends, then returned home. OK, so I was a bit tipsy–in fact, I laid down on my bed fully clothed (could not have been more modest. A long-sleeved blouse, a pair of jeans, a belt, a pair of shoes.) Certainly not clothes for seduction. Unfortunately, I had forgotten to lock the door to my room, and my roommate was out of town. The other students in the dorm had the habit of leaving the main doors propped open on weekends even though they were not supposed to . A stranger got in and apparently was looking for unlocked doors. I wont go into details about the rape…but I feel that I was raped twice for reporting it, as it caused trauma that lasted for years.
First, I went to a doctor on campus to be examined. I was treated with disdain. Then, I was subjected to endless questioning by campus police. They would come to my classroom or my place of work numerous times to take me to the station to give statements. I could not concentrate on schoolwork and my grades plummeted. Rumors circulated around campus that I was involved in drug dealing because the police were always after me. The university did nothing, All the faculty worried about was the reputation of the university. No one did anything to help. I finally withdrew from college for a time. After a year, I went back,. Comments were made to me…“You stayed there, you must have known the girl who was raped…” (I denied it, of course,), then a comment was made by a security guard on campus “We had a real AMUSING rape case this summen” and proceeded to relate my story. Cops were not only unsympathetic, they were snickering. Of course the cops took my clpthes that I wore during the rape. A year later, they came to my workplace, in full uniform, with the clothes, asking me if I wanted them back. (I burned the damn things.) So is it any wonder rapes go unreported? You are raped twice–first by the rapist, then by the system. (Oh, by the way, the rapist wrote a letter to police saying that I “Wanted it.”
I won’t go into detail about the second rape, but I wil say that after 27 years law enforcement and doctors seem to have learned something about how to treat victims. Not always–I lost a set of clothes and all my bedding–which is still in the evidence room after one year. I now carry pepper spray at all times and make sure my door is locked night and day.
I went to the press about the second rape, as I did not want anyone else to go through what I did. Oh, I forgot to mention that I was not exactly dressed as a seductress the second time, either. I simply made the mistake of not completely locking my door and having had a few peaceful beers by myself. Since when is that a crime? (I am 48 years old, no spring chicken. This serial rapist, who is still at large, has raped women as old as 67.) I needed to vent about this, and peace be with you all.
D
distracted
Guest
well, there’s that saying that men never grow up, they just get taller… seems totally true to ME… but then I’ve been through a lot that makes me… cynical…
in any case, i guess some people can look past Coulter’s “bedside manner” and some cannot.
i tend to laugh things off that don’t set well w/ me… and frankly her remarks focusing on single mothers fit that category… I DO think she neglects to mention (much) the irresponsiblity of MEN, puts all the blame on women… That’s the main thing i dislike about what she says…
but i like the rest of what she says too much to throw the baby out with the bathwater…
i think someone needs to write to her… i tried e-mailing but didn’t get anywhere… i think you have to have some special kind of… whatever you call it… email account…
or maybe she deliberately sets things up so peple can’t respond. After all, if she read every disgruntled reader’s comments, she couldn’t get … her next incendiary book written…
.
D
distracted
Guest
i never said he cared about the unborn… some other poster did.
i may have said he was pro-life… but even if i did put it that way…
its one thing to say someone is pro-life (against abortion) or cares about the unborn
it’s quite another to say he doesn’t give a *** about anyone BORN…
you could have said it SEEMED he didn’t give a rip…i know he was pro-life because he did things to curtail abortion… parental rights laws, etc…
so i have proof… Just because we went to war doesn’t mean he doesn’t give a rip about Iraquis… How about: lesser of 2 evils??? how about: something needs to be done even if its something not so great like war??
or do you not believe in wars (that kill adults)…
D
distracted
Guest
are you…!!! (never mind…)
there have been studies that PROVE babies feel pain in the womb… at a very early age, probably from the very beginning…
were you a baby in your mother’s womb or something less than that?? A fetus is still a baby. There’s no difference…
maybe you need to be more careful how you interpret words…
the Nazis called th Jews all kinds of things… they put words on them to make them seem less human so they could justify exterminating them… The same hting is happening in the abortion industry… THEY are the ones to thank for the over-use of the word Fetus…
and they are winning this Word War… to the tune of over a million babies killed every yr…
they also throw the word Choice around…
Yes, we should all have choice… but the choice to kill our children???
but, No, they never use THOSE words…
not good for business…
D
distracted
Guest
foreign combatants do not have the same rights as American citizens…
and if they are withholding info that could save others’ lives… they should be forced to divulge that info…
that’s war…
what’s the difference between that and being tortured by a bomb exploding nearby…
its war… and Saddam was the one who started things…
D
distracted
Guest
the laws of the Church technically apply to everyone because the Church is on Earth for eveyrone… God doesn’t make one set of rules for one group and another set for another group… Even so, Christians are the ones the Church specifically addresses when making moral judgments about… whatever. In other words, the Church tells Christians how to follow Christ in eveyr way so they can get to Heaven (which according to Jesus is NOT easy and not many make it…)
If you are not a Christian, then it wouldn’t apply only because you are not trying to please Christ… or (presumably) trying to get to Heaven (one has to please God if he wants to get to Heaven)… A person who is not Christian is not required to live by the rules of the Church only because of that… they wouldn’t make much sense to him, etc. It is not because they “do not apply”… it is not because he gets a “free pass” with God… If a person suspects that the teachings of the Church are right, he is obligated to adhere to them… Only when he is invinsibly ignorant is he NOT…
I
IVF is NOT allowed… for one thing the man has to do an impure act w/ self to get the sperm for the fertilization process… & for another, this is not the way God wants life to come into the world. He wants people who love ea other to get married & do it the natual, normal, godly way…
(I don’t think the Church takes a stand one way or the ohter on plastic surgery but i personally am very against it)
if people are infertile but want to have a baby, the Church says, basically, “Accept your cross (child-lessness)”… We are not to be as spoiled children … Whatever we want, we should be able to get, and to h— with God and what he wants…
I’m sure the Church wouldn’t put it exactly like that … but whatever…
J
jokerman
Guest
Coulter is absolutely on the right side of the debate. she goes where the facts lead her. she only seems so radical because she is the only political pundit with the guts to tell the truth on sensitive topics. there are more than enough political correctness out there already, what we need is more people who are brave enough to deal with the hard facts no matter how uncomfortable they may be to certain people.
you can only disagree with her manner of speaking, maybe her attitude but you cannot argue with the facts. they are what they are. she doesn’t hide from them or make excuses for them.
if you can get in the habit of reading her weekly column that comes out wednesday evenings you will see right away that she has a nack for getting to the heart of the matter. while all the other pundits basically repeat each other over and over again, she brings original thought to current events…thoughts you will not get anywhere else and thoughts that challenge the mainstream medias biased coverage.
you can only disagree with her manner of speaking, maybe her attitude but you cannot argue with the facts. they are what they are. she doesn’t hide from them or make excuses for them.
if you can get in the habit of reading her weekly column that comes out wednesday evenings you will see right away that she has a nack for getting to the heart of the matter. while all the other pundits basically repeat each other over and over again, she brings original thought to current events…thoughts you will not get anywhere else and thoughts that challenge the mainstream medias biased coverage.
C
Contarini
Guest
They have human rights. And a decent government would have treated them according to the Geneva Convention.
It’s war as waged by evil, despotic empires. It’s not righteous war. It’s not a war that any Christian, or any decent person of any religion or none, should have anything to do with.
The difference is that torture is incompatible with human dignity. You are deliberately trying to break down a human being’s free will through the use of pain and/or humiliation. This is despicable and explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church (even when the Catholic Church did condone torture, I am pretty sure that it was *only *the torture of criminals against whom there was already circumstantial evidence–there had to be some kind of legal procedure first).
Then the only moral approach is pacifism. You keep talking about having trouble believing that a real Christian would do thus and so. Well I find it astounding that a Christian could say with a straight face that war necessarily involves the use of torture without also advocating pacifism. If war compels us to do evil, then let us not wage war. Isn’t it better to be killed than to do evil? If we don’t believe that, we are below the moral level of virtuous pagans like Socrates, and this whole Christianity thing is nothing but a sham to make us feel good.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I have heard very few facts from Coulter, and those heavily doctored. She’s almost all rhetoric–very little that could even pass for fact in the dark with a light behind it.
What you say is exactly the reverse of the truth. I would not be so frivolous as to quarrel with her attitude if what she was saying was true and good in substance (though style and substance can’t really be separated).
Edwin
D
distracted
Guest
:clapping::clapping:
- Status