A brilliant response to anti-abortion harassment

**iravedic** · 11-14-13, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

While some ideas like the ones Civil posed are tempting to support, this is the reason I would never support it. Because the question of who decides is a tricky one. Right now it's left at mothers and their babies - and while I think even that is abhorrent, I do not want to see any expansion of the enterprise of killing children or old people.

What are your personal views on the death penalty? You appear to be in the "life is sacrosanct" camp, but my supposition is that you are pro death penalty (not sure hence the question).

**-Lazarus-** · 11-14-13, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by iravedic

What are your personal views on the death penalty? You appear to be in the "life is sacrosanct" camp, but my supposition is that you are pro death penalty (not sure hence the question).

To me the death penalty seems like we are going too easy on the people who deserve the punishment. My preference is that criminals would spend the rest of their life in a prison cell with restricted but humane living conditions rather than kill them. I don't believe necessarily that life is sacrosanct. I believe that liberty and the unalienable rights of the individual are sacrosanct though.

That said, I am not one who opposes the death penalty as a punishment outright. I just think the death penalty is too easy for criminals, though it can give victims or families of victims some closure.

You're not inferring any comparison between criminals on death row and aborted children or deformed, sick or old people, are you? Hoping here that you aren't.

Children in the womb, etc. are innocent and blameless, convicted criminals are not as far as I'm concerned.

**iravedic** · 11-14-13, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

To me the death penalty seems like we are going too easy on the people who deserve the punishment. My preference is that criminals would spend the rest of their life in a prison cell with restricted but humane living conditions rather than kill them. I don't believe necessarily that life is sacrosanct. I believe that liberty and the unalienable rights of the individual are sacrosanct though.

That said, I am not one who opposes the death penalty as a punishment outright. I just think the death penalty is too easy for criminals, though it can give victims or families of victims some closure.

You're not inferring any comparison between criminals on death row and aborted children or deformed, sick or old people, are you? Hoping here that you aren't.

Children in the womb, etc. are innocent and blameless, convicted criminals are not as far as I'm concerned.

To me this is a very "un-christian" view, and not where I expected you to come down on the issue.

And of course it was a comparison of abortion and the death penalty - thought that was pretty clear. It boggles my mind how many Christians who professes great faith are both pro-life and pro-death penalty.

**Guyver** · 11-14-13, 05:47 PM

The death penalty is given to certain criminals. What did an unborn baby do?

**-Lazarus-** · 11-14-13, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by iravedic

To me this is a very "un-christian" view, and not where I expected you to come down on the issue.

And of course it was a comparison of abortion and the death penalty - thought that was pretty clear. It boggles my mind how many Christians who professes great faith are both pro-life and pro-death penalty.

I'm not sure why you feel that way or what your view on Christians and the death penalty is based on but ok. Whatever floats your boat.

In order to compare the two, you really need moral equivalency, don't you? And there is none.

**-Lazarus-** · 11-14-13, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by Guyver

The death penalty is given to certain criminals. What did an unborn baby do?

Inconvenienced their mother?

**WickedTribe** · 11-14-13, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by -Lazarus-

Well you suddenly seem to have gotten more reasonable, haven't you!

I'm always reasonable, and I always provide sources and explanations to my arguments.

Your original question was asking me to explain how we will come up with unlimited resources if we have unlimited population growth, not why population growth will not deplete our resources.

Incorrect. My original statement was that as the population grows, we'll run into resource scarcity before we run out of physical space. You wrote this off as a "myth."

The truth is that your assumption is fallacious one to start with. We don't have unlimited population growth of any species here on earth and we never will. There will always be natural events that affect and limit population growth. We also have not even come close to discovering all of the resource potential that this planet has to offer us. Not to mention the technological advancements we will see as time goes on.

And what limits population growth for apex species like ourselves? Scarcity of resources. And although some species are good at self-regulating growth, many are not, and the crashes are violent affairs. Furthermore, no species on earth has had population growth patterns that we're currently displaying.

Yes, something will limit our growth, but that doesn't mean that it has to happen peacefully, and that doesn't mean that it won't have royally fucked up the planet before it does.

No matter our population growth, it is incredibly arrogant and naive to think that we will destroy this planet and/or "use it all up". The planet was here long before us, and it will keep spinning long after I suspect.

The rock will certainly outlast us, but that doesn't help us much if it's uninhabitable. It's very well established that we could make our planet hostile to human life through the use of nuclear weapons. Given that, your claim that we couldn't fuck up our planet is right out the window. There's no reason that we couldn't fuck it up just as permanently with slower methods.