Weekend question
A Cambodian named Kaing Guek Eav is scheduled to go on trial soon in his native homeland.
As a Khmer Rouge leader of a Phnom Penh torture center 30 years ago, Eav has admitted responsibility for the deaths of 12,000 to 14,000 people who were forced from there to their final resting place in mass graves in the Cambodian killing fields
“Some 1.7 million Cambodians, 1/4 of the population, died during the 4 years of Khmer Rouge rule,” reported World magazine.
The government recently took Eav back to the scene of his crimes, including “a tree against which his underlings smashed babies’ heads,” according to World.
“Eav broke down in sobs,” continued World, “But he did more than that. He knelt on the ground and prayed, because during the 1990s the torturer had made a professiona of faith in Christ.”
Until caught Eav worked for a Christian children’s relief organization, World Vision.
Eav has expressed profound regret and was apparently attempting to repay his debt to society in his own small way.
What do you think should be Eav’s punishment, if found guilty?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
If he truly regrets and understands what he did, that guy is going to haunted for the rest of his life.
I don’t know quite what you would do with someone like that. If he ISN’T truly sorry then death is too good for him. If he IS sorry, then the torments he will endure will be a greater punishment than any of us could come up with.
Then again, you have to ask, were the people he killed considered “persons” by the government at the time? If not, then according to pro choice logic, he didn’t really do anything wrong. I mean, if they weren’t consi
dered persons under the law, then all he really did was eliminate clumps of non-person cells. Nothin’ wrong with that, right?
This situation points out one of the main reasons why I am against capital punishment: the conversion of the murderer before death.
It may have taken a few years and he certainly murdered alot of people (big understatement), but there has to be alot of rejoicing in heaven over his conversion. His conversion must be heartfelt and true because a person just doesn’t go and do this type of work for show. He was obviously trying to make reparation by his work for a relief group.
As for his punishment – I just don’t know. I’d like to see what others think.
He should be given life in prison.
Kaing Guek Eav worked for Pol Pot Leader of the Khmer Rouge, the brutal Communist organization that ruled Cambodia from 1976-79. Strongly influenced by the French Communist Party, turned Cambodia into a massive gulag of slave labor, was responsible for the deaths of some 2 million people. Poverty, starvation, and terror were the hallmarks of Cambodia during his rule.
In November 1970, President Nixon asked the U.S. Congress to provide the Cambodian government of Lon Nol with $155 million in aid, of which $85 million would be earmarked for military assistance to help prevent the Khmer Rouge from taking power. American leftists, however, were adamantly against this proposal. During this period, many American leftists openly supported a Communist takeover in Southeast Asia. Among the most notable spokespeople of this position was the popular actress Jane Fonda and her husband Tom Hayden, whose public comments were unambiguous in their expressions of contempt for America and sympathy for the Communists. On November 21, 1970, Fonda told a large University of Michigan audience, “If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become Communist.” At Duke University, she elaborated, “I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to Communism.” The dual villains of Southeast Asian conflicts were, in her view, “U.S. imperialism” and “a white man’s racist aggression.”
..doesnt this sound familiar…
Months later the American “anti-war” left and its allies in the Democratic Party led by Senator Edward Kennedy brought down the Nixon presidency in the Watergate affair. Hayden and his likeminded supporters gained immense political leverage from Nixon’s resignation in August 1974. That year’s midterm elections, which were held just three months after the resignation, resulted in catastrophic losses for Republicans and ushered in a new group of Democratic legislators determined to undo the Nixon peace policy and surrender Cambodia and Vietnam to the enemy..
..hmmm..
While Pol Pot was carrying out his genocide, numerous American leftists functioned as his apologists. Notable among these was the American-hating MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who viewed Pol Pot as a revolutionary hero. When news of the “killing fields” became increasingly publicized, Chomsky’s faith in Pol Pot could not be shaken. He initially tried to minimize the magnitude of Pol Pot’s atrocities (saying that he had killed only “a few thousand people at most”).He suggested that the forced expulsion of the population from Phnom Penh was most likely necessitated by the failure of the 1976 rice crop. Wrote Chomsky, “the evacuation of Phnom Penh, widely denounced at the time and since for its undoubted brutality, may actually have saved many lives.”In a 1977 article in The Nation, Chomsky attacked those witnesses and writers who were shedding ever-brighter rays of light on Pol Pot’s holocaust; he accused them of trying to spread anti-communist propaganda. In 1980, when it was indisputable that a huge proportion of Cambodia’s population had died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, Chomsky again blamed an unfortunate failure of the rice crop rather than systematic genocide.
Contemptuous of religion in general, atheist Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge targeted people of faith aggressively. During Pol Pot’s reign, more than 48 percent of Cambodian Catholics disappeared; the number of monks living in the country dwindled from approximately 60,000 to 1,000. The cathedral in Phnom Penh was razed to the ground. The exact extent of the genocide wrought by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge has defied calculation. 1.2 million dead is the low estimate, from U.S. officials; the Vietnamese-sponsored government, the PRK (People’s Republic of Kampuchea), claimed 3 million; Amnesty International claims 1.4 million, and the Yale Genocide Project claims that the final tally was 1.7 million. Whatever the precise figure may be, it is clear that between one-seventh and one-fourth of Cambodia’s population was exterminated by Pol Pot.
I really have a very hard time with this … if I do seek punishment: 1) what does ‘appropriate/fair’ mean? and 2) in seeking this, does the punishment hurt me more than it will ever hurt him?
We’re in a very similar dilemma attempting to make all abortion illegal once again. There is more than enough pain (to us + the aborted children) – it has wounded everyone. Inflicting-even-more-agony will not heal us. Do we need redress as much as we need healing?
Jasper,
Chilling. Where did you find that info?
Punishment? Hopefully he will get due process and a fair trial, if that exists over there. Life in prison would be my first response.
This reminds me of a recent story of a woman in Rwanda who forgave the man–her neighbor– for hackng her husband and children to death during that whole Rwandan bloodbath. She even sits nexts to the man’s wife weaving baskets for Macy’s.
Hi Carder,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1998
There we go, John McD, once again you’ve nailed it for me.
This man could be lynch-mobbed for all we know. But once we hear of what led him to the throne of Mercy, and his reparation of working with World Vision, maybe 30+ years of hindsight might temper some rightfully indignant people.
You’ll need to clarify your statement: “We’re in a very similar dilemma attempting to make all abortion illegal once again.”
Does that mean that aboritonists should not be brought to justice if/when abortion becomes illegal?
Are you saying abortion should not become illegal?
Is pro-life looking to inflict agony on aborted women?
Jasper,
I sort of vaguely remember this murderous regime – I was in my late teens by then! I remember the world did nothing while this went on. For years.
Didn’t Dr. Tom Dooley work in Cambodia? I seem to remember him describing the people as very beautiful and kind. How much they’ve suffered since they embraced communism.
Patricia,
I’m not sure about Tom Dooley. My older brother was in Vietnam for 2 long years with the Marines. I was born while he was there (’67). I have 2 friends from work that escaped Cambondia during Pol Pot’s murderous reign. They were lucky.
Patricia, 8:08am
You have a far more charitable nature than I.
I do not for a minute believe sociopathic killers convert. I do know these are masters of manipulation devoid of any conscience who will stop at nothing to stay alive and do so by convincing people they have had a “conversion”.
I’m convinced he was hiding out. Who would look for some mass murderer in a charitable organization?
He’s in this situation because he and his fellow mass murderers were thrown out of power, not because he suddenly became a nice guy.
Sure, now he looks like a gentle old man repaying his debt to society. Horse puckey. He wants to stay alive.
Maybe we should as the surviving victims of his torture and those who lost their families what an appropriate punishment would be. Who better than them to tell us what justice would truly be?
Mary,
Interesting.
Which is why I agree with John McD. Do the victims need redress or healing?
Did World Vision know who they were hiring?
Only God knows if he is truly repentant. I would hope that he has changed and that when he dies he goes to heaven. Jesus died and rose for us all. As for punishment I don’t know. Life in prison?
Reminds me of Somg asking me as a mother who aborted her child how shall I be punished? Publicly executed?
@carder,
we all live interwoven lives. For anyone that loves, such ‘bonding’ is unseen but palpable.
In such circumstances, our own identity as ‘protectors’ is shattered by both pro-aborts and by PC. (Its even worse with PC who ask for indifference or looking-the-other-way.)
I now believe not too much will change, until we begin to really comprehend how abortion has impacted adults … we are chastened, quietened, deadened to our own non-caring. We seem much like the crowd who gathered at Rome’s Coliseum and thought they had power by signaling ‘up’ or ‘down’.
He’s a Christian. He should receive punishment according to the law.
After repentance comes reparation. He has it right.
The true story here is how even the grotesque sins of a man can be forgiven by faith in Christ.
When Jesus died on the cross he endured all of the sins committed by mankind,
This is hard to understand even for a believer save for a knowledge of His infinite mercy, grace and love.
Perhaps our example should be found in the two theives on the cross at Calvary.
While He was fully able to do so (as He was also able to call down 10,000 angels) Jesus did not rescue either one of theives from the consequences of their crimes. They both were executed. One chose eternal death after life by rejecting and mocking Christ and the other chose eternal life after life by accepting Christ, i.e., acknowledging who He was and asking for forgiveness.
We’re all given the same choice today.
Jasper, 8:59a: GREAT info, thanks.
Carder, 9:58a: No, I don’t think World Vision knew who it was hiring. According to World magazine:
In western Cambodia, on the other side of the country from where Eav had been a beast, he had become known as a gentle Christian teacher who walked around with a Bible and helped hungry refugee children.
That rededicated life ended in 1999, while Eav was working for World Vision. A photographer identified him as the master torturer, and Eav confessed, saying, “It is God’s will that you are here.” Christopher LaPel, the pastor who had baptized him, said he “was shocked when I found out who he really was, because what he did was so evil.”
IMO, responses to the question are confused. Here is a point from the magazine article to ponder:
The punishment Duch is likely to receive should be distinguished from the forgiveness from Cambodian Christians that he may receive…
It should also be distinguished from the forgiveness from God the man has received if truly repentant, and the eternal reward – not punishment – he will also receive if he has accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
John McD: This is a bit off-topic, but your comment reminded me of this song I love, “Change our Hearts”:
Change our Hearts Rory Cooney
Lyrics:
Refrain: Change our hearts this time, your word says it can be. Change our minds this time, your life could make us free. We are the people your call sets apart. Lord, this time change our hearts.
Brought by your hand to the edge of our dreams, one foot in paradise, one in the waste. Drawn by your promises, still we are lured by the shadows and the chains we leave behind. But …
Now as we watch you stretch out your hands, offering abundances, fullness of joy, your milk and honey seem distant, unreal, when we have bread and water in our hands. But …
Show us the way that leads to your side, over the mountains and sands of the soul. Be for us manna, water from stone, light which says we never walk alone. And …
Here’s a short preview:
http://users.aol.com/cooneytoon/Hearts2.mov
St. Paul was a murderer and after his conversion was not executed for his crimes but for his faith.
This is a tough one Jill and I am thinking out loud.
Good point, H.
Mary,
This is a tough one, I tend to agree with you that he is a sociopath. Someone who could commit these atrocities cannot be trusted in society. I do not believe in the death penalty, so the rest of his life in prison, (solitary confinement?) might be the best punishment. Give him time to think about what he has done, pray for the souls of all those people he killed, and prove to God that he truly has had a change of heart.
Forgive the Christian, since he repented and all!
Edyt: 12:03:Forgive the Christian, since he repented and all!
Hisman’s post at 11:11 said it quite well:
The true story here is how even the grotesque sins of a man can be forgiven by faith in Christ.
When Jesus died on the cross he endured all of the sins committed by mankind,
This is hard to understand even for a believer save for a knowledge of His infinite mercy, grace and love.
Perhaps our example should be found in the two theives on the cross at Calvary.
While He was fully able to do so (as He was also able to call down 10,000 angels) Jesus did not rescue either one of theives from the consequences of their crimes. They both were executed. One chose eternal death after life by rejecting and mocking Christ and the other chose eternal life after life by accepting Christ, i.e., acknowledging who He was and asking for forgiveness.
We’re all given the same choice today.
Posted by: HisMan at May 24, 2008 11:11 AM
What would Jesus do?
As a Catholic, I believe Eav will spend many years in purgatory. (I’m not open to discussing the doctrine of purgatory right now).
However, given that, I’m not so sure that I would be kind enough to have forgiven him if he had wiped out my family.
I can’t help but think about that Texas woman years ago who murdered a man by stabbing him a gazillion times, had repented and was a Christian minister in prison. She was executed for her crimes. To me that was very wrong. The man’s family came to watch her die and were still very filled with hatred after. satan wins in this situation, IMO.
Yes, Edyt. Forgive him.
HisMan, good point on Paul. Do you know if the killing he did was legal?
Eav committed horrendous crimes against humanity. Jill, the part about the trees just broke my heart. Just when I think I’ve heard of all of the horrendous things there are, another doozy gets sent my way. Unbelievable.
Eav, if being a believer in Jesus Christ, will know that although his earthly destiny is held in the hands of the judges, he should know that his eternal one is held in the hands of God. Praise God that the epitome of wickedness can do a complete 180 degree turn through the blood and love of Jesus Christ. What a testimony to the love and mercy of God!
Eav should also know that whatever judgment he gets, it’s the exact one that God made happen for him. God can move mountains! God can have the judges show mercy to Eav, or not. Either way, whether it be a complete pardon or an exectution, Eav should know that he needs to trust God that whatever happens will be the best for God’s plan for him.
If Eav is executed for his crimes, he should also know that although they will be remembered on earth as long as earth stands, they have been forgotten by God the moment Eav confessed his sins and accepted Jesus into his life.
Jeremiah 31:34
They shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
If Eav is executed, or imprisoned for the rest of his earthly life, he will find comfort in the fact that the moment he passes from this life, he will spend eternity with the Lord who forgave him and forgot each and every one of his sins.
If Eav is shown mercy by the judges, what a testimony and witness he will be for his remaining time here on earth.
I pray for Eav and the judges.
I think he should get life in prison.
Being left with his own thoughts about his actions if he has repented should cause him to suffer quite a bit.
Even if he hasn’t really repented, he should still get life in prison.
JLM, 2p, amen. That entire Jeremiah passage is one of my favorites.
Thanks, Jill. That passage is one of my favorites as well!
Forgiven & forgotten!
“I think he should get life in prison.
“Being left with his own thoughts about his actions if he has repented should cause him to suffer quite a bit.
WHat is the point of this? I’m sure if he has really experienced repentance he is suffering terribly. Perhaps working with a charitable org will help him repay his debt to society in some small way.
Because that’s not really how it works, Patricia.
If he hasn’t really repented, would you be saying he should be free and working with a charitable organization? The fact that he may be sorry for what he did doesn’t change what he did, and he should still face the consequences, and since I don’t believe that to be the death penatly(since I don’t support that), life in prison makes sense.
I’m sure there are plenty of people here who would love to be free if all they had to do was repent. In fact, many people in prison say they’ve found God and are truly sorry for what they’ve done. It doesn’t change the horrendous nature of their crime(s) and they’re still in prison. If he TRULY is repentant, any punishment he receives I’m sure he will not object to, because people who are truly sorry know they must face the consequences of their actions, whatever those may be.
JLM I love your 2pm post. Excellent!
That’s an excellent question Jill.
I believe it problably was based on some phony or trumped up charged that Christians were causing a ruckus. They stoned Steven, the first martyr.
That’s how the Pharisees were able to have Christ crucified by the Romans.
I would need to study that.
However, even if the murders were legal, they weren’t moral. Paul realized that after his conversion when he confessed that he was the chief of sinners and in God’s grace became one of the greatest men who ever lived.
It would be kind of like SoMG converting to Pro-Life.
Carla,
Awwww…thank you.
:)
HisMan, Eav’s crimes weren’t crimes when he committed them either, interestingly. Kind of like abortion.
And exactly what kind of work was Eav doing for World Vision? Digging wells or making a nice pay check sitting behind a desk?
Seems to me that if the man had become a Christian he would have turned himself in to authorities. Wouldn’t that be the Christian thing to do? If he is groovy with God then he would have nothing to fear from death.
Interesting that he would fall down on his knees and beg after forcing so very many to do the same. How dramatic! And easy it is to garner Christian sympathy when you say and do what is expected.
Let those he has wronged do what they will with him.
I wondered that too Sally. If he would have turned himself in…
Sally 7:44PM
Good point. Certainly if this man had any kind of a conscience(which I seriously doubt) he would be unable to live with himself and would turn himself in.
As I stated in my previous post, I think this was
an attempt to keep himself alive, period. He would pose as anything or anybody to do it, including a Christian mission worker. Where’s the last place you would look for a mass murderer?
He fell down and begged? Well maybe he has a very very small idea of what his victims endured in their last moments.
I say the same thing, let his victims and the survivors of victims have the final say. Who better than them to judge what this man truly deserves.
Mary,
Given the comparisons with our pro-lifism, would you say that abortionists fall under the category of “sociopath”?
You know, a couple of things come to mind. We have told the “non-christians” on this site that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and it’s a done deal. As someone mentioned, SoMG converting. So how can we say this, if when someone actually does it, we say, “Oh well, it wasn’t enough”…either it is or it isn’t.
I tend to believe it is.
The other thought I had is that in war soldiers sometimes lose it and go nuts, acting in ways they would never act in normal circumstances. They just sort of snap. It’s where the word berserk comes from, I think. Does anyone know if that’s the word? Or what I’m talking about?
I think in situations like this one, and Nazi Germany, a lot of folks simply snapped, waking up to find that they had done horrible, horrible things.
And lastly, when a woman has an abortion, the priest will often tell her that part of her penance/healing is to go and volunteer in some way in the pro life movement…to adopt a child with special needs…something to make atonement.
It sounds like that’s what this guy was “trying” to do.
I still don’t know what to do with him, because his victims and their families must be considered, but if he is truly horrified by what he did, I’d hate to see him put to death.
I wondered that too Sally. If he would have turned himself in…
Posted by: Carla at May 24, 2008 7:57 PM
……………………………….
…………. he might have a leg to stand on?
Sally 7:44PM
Good point. Certainly if this man had any kind of a conscience(which I seriously doubt) he would be unable to live with himself and would turn himself in.
As I stated in my previous post, I think this was
an attempt to keep himself alive, period. He would pose as anything or anybody to do it, including a Christian mission worker. Where’s the last place you would look for a mass murderer?
He fell down and begged? Well maybe he has a very very small idea of what his victims endured in their last moments.
I say the same thing, let his victims and the survivors of victims have the final say. Who better than them to judge what this man truly deserves.
Posted by: Mary at May 24, 2008 8:11 PM
………………………………………….
I’m with you Mary! There are people that do not relate to pain and misery the way the majority of the population does. Some are deemed evil and some are deemed saints. Depending on the perception.
This man thought he was rooting out evil when he murdered. He found a friend in Christianity in that thought. And that should alarm you.
MK….I agree.
Mk,
It may be enough as far as the spirit is concerned, but what about this physical world right now?
I don’t think he should be put to death either.
mk: You know, a couple of things come to mind. We have told the “non-christians” on this site that all they have to do is ask for forgiveness and it’s a done deal. As someone mentioned, SoMG converting. So how can we say this, if when someone actually does it, we say, “Oh well, it wasn’t enough”…either it is or it isn’t.
I tend to believe it is.
Aren’t we talking about justice on earth? I still say life in prison, unless he’s 95 years old. Then, maybe not…..prison. Certainly not the death penalty.
This man, under the law, must be accountable for the crimes which he has committed. Conversion to Christianity does not excuse what he did and it does not change the fact that what we reap, we sow. This man can never “repay his debt” to society. That isn’t even possible, after his actions that have been described here. No way.
If he has made his soul right with the Lord, then that is between him and the Lord, and no punishment on this earth will be able to take that away from him.
I have a good friend who is in prison for murder. He went down a VERY wrong path, making poor choices regarding alcohol and relationships, and ended up somewhere he never imagined he would be. He turned his back on God but was brought to his knees when he saw what he had become and how his own hands had taken another’s life. He is in prison and will be there for the rest of his life, but he has never once used his “conversion” as a plea for mercy. Never. He knows that he committed a crime, and he now has to spend the rest of his days in prison. But oddly enough, what he has learned is that he would rather be locked up in prison and free in his soul than free in the world and bound in his soul.
Sally, many people would try to abuse Christianity for their own means. It does alarm me. I cannot say if this man is doing this, because I do not know his heart. However, it does not discredit my faith when someone chooses to misuse it, misinterpret it, or manipulate it for a self-serving purpose.
And I noticed that you have no derogatory comments regarding the atheistic, communist regime of Pol Pot under which this man worked before…but you choose instead to finger Christianity as a culprit here? Or am I just misreading what you’ve posted?
Sally,
Like Kel I must wonder if I am misreading your post. The man did indeed function under an atheistic communist regime, he persecuted both Christian and Buddhist believers and just hid among Christian mission workers to protect himself.
Carder 8:18PM
That would be hard to say. It would really depend on the individual. Sociopaths function in all capacities, they tend to be highly intelligent people, and not all are involved in criminal or anti-social behavior. Also, not all people involved in criminal or other behavior we might find unacceptable are sociopathic. You likely have encountered many and never realized it.
I had to come to the painful realization that a long time friend and co-worker is a sociopath. I maintain my friendship with him and I in fact like him, the guy would do anything to help me out and has, but I always keep in mind I am dealing with a sociopath. It was many years, and several unfortunate experiences, before I discovered this about him.
I read the following idea in the Letters section (I forget which paper):
To defray the cost of high gas prices, let’s introduce a special tax of $10.00 on everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
Call it the dummy tax.
You can do it Sally.
Blame and scapegoat the Catholics somehow somewhere in this post thread.
Tell us how the Catholics drove those atheist materialist communist to murder a few million.
You can do it Sad Eyed Sally, the three generation anti-Catholic bigot.
And to whom it may concern. Yes I, the mirror of Sally is provoking this anti-Catholic bigot to see if she has repentanted of her natural born bigotry, and wishes to seek forgiveness by “digging wells” in a over populated Catholic nation.
But wait, Dogma Doug will soon rise to the podium and defend this bigot from being a ally of abortion propagandist no matter how bigoted they are. Or vandals too. Right Dogma Doug?
You can do it Sally.
Blame and scapegoat the Catholics somehow somewhere in this post thread.
Tell us how the Catholics drove those atheist materialist communist to murder a few million.
You can do it Sad Eyed Sally, the three generation anti-Catholic bigot.
Yes I, the mirror of Sally, am provoking this anti-Catholic bigot to see if she has repentanted of her natural born bigotry, and wishes to seek forgiveness by “digging wells” in a over populated Catholic nation.
But wait, Dogma Doug will soon rise to the podium and defend this bigot from being a ally of abortion propagandist no matter how bigoted they are. Or vandals too. Right Dogma Doug?
“To defray the cost of high gas prices, let’s introduce a special tax of $10.00 on everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
Call it the dummy tax.”
@SoMG: Very clever. *giggle*
SoMG:
You know SoMG, we could raise more money if we taxed every one $10.00 for each of the billion babies killed worldwide since Roe v. Wade.
We can call it the “death tax”.
Now I know that’s a tax you would love to pay.
Giggle, giggle.
MK,
This is written with much respect. I wanted to give you another perspective.
I can never atone for the killing of my child through abortion. I can never do enough penance. There is nothing to make up for taking a precious little girl’s life. Jesus hung on the cross and died for my sins and rose again. He died for my sin of abortion, for murder. He has taken the penalty.
Over my abortion he has written in His blood PAID IN FULL.
I can only speak for the unborn by getting healing myself through bible studies and Rachel’s Vineyard and reaching out to others but, I do not do it to atone. Jesus redeems my pain and regret of the abortion by allowing me to shine His light and reach out to other women who are lost in their guilt and shame.
Carla,
Can’t remember if you are Catholic or not, be we believe there are two prices to pay. There is a temporal punishment as well as spiritual forgiveness.
When we go to confession, we are forgiven for our sins, yes, but we still offer up some sort of reparation, a penance.
Not to “earn” forgiveness, that’s already done, more to balance the cosmic scales that we disrupted through our sins.
Every sin “releases” evil, and that evil must be offset with a “good”…hence the phrase that Catholic mothers are so fond of “Offer it up”…
If you aren’t Catholic, then I understand that you don’t believe this. But that’s the point of view I was coming from…
Nothing can bring your child back, but the evil that “escaped” can be offset…Nothing can bring back the lives this man took, but the evil that was unleashed can be harnessed again.
And never be afraid to disagree with me. I know that you ALWAYS do so with the utmost respect.
No I’m not Catholic, MK. :)
Thank you for your explanation.
No problem Carla.
The other thing is that Mercy does not say that a person doesn’t deserve punishment. On the contrary, they might deserve it very much. But Mercy means that despite deserving it, the person won’t be required to pay it.
Justice says you get what you deserve. Mercy says you don’t get what you deserve. I guess I just feel that if we are called follow Jesus’ ways, then we too would be required to show “mercy”…
But as I said, it’s not really our call to make. It’s the call of the families that were affected by these crimes…
It’s a tough one.
I’d LIKE to see the families forgive this man, but I certainly wouldn’t hold it against them if they didn’t.
“The other thing is that Mercy does not say that a person doesn’t deserve punishment. On the contrary, they might deserve it very much. But Mercy means that despite deserving it, the person won’t be required to pay it.
Carla,
None of us can do enough penance for the sins we commit, whether it be fraud, murder or adultery. This is because God is infinitely good. Just remember, God mercy is limitless. He sees your grief and remorse and He knows. I think I better understand this being a parent of older children. You sometimes have to watch them DO the wrong thing, despite counselling them otherwise. It’s painful to watch and it’s painful to see them suffer the consequences too.
God loves you Carla!
As for Eav, he definitely should get imprisonment, but I would love to see it be in a constructive way, so that he’s not locked away to rot.
(Nice try, SoMG, to try to hijack yet another post!)
Excellent post, Carla.
That reminds me of these verses:
Romans 5:10-11
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Praise God!!!
Hisman,
Death Tax.
You’re too much. ;0)
Carla, amen and thank God for the price that Jesus paid for all of our sins! (hugs)
Pretty interesting.
(How about that Bernard Nathanson guy???)
Was the massacre considered a war crime at the time it was done?
Then I guess war crime punishment has to take place, or else the international “consensus” on that kind of activity becomes meaningless.
We can see what happens to overall health care standards when abortion practitioners are exempted from the statutes.
The same is true of war criminals. Any regulations covering these people have to be enforced. The pay off for an actual repentance for Kaing Guek Eav is in his afterlife. Being caught and serving the sentence might actually bring this man some peace.
The pay off for an actual repentance for Kaing Guek Eav is in his afterlife. Being caught and serving the sentence might actually bring this man some peace.
Posted by: KB at May 25, 2008 4:59 PM
Yeah, I agree with you KB!
This man, under the law, must be accountable for the crimes which he has committed. Conversion to Christianity does not excuse what he did and it does not change the fact that what we reap, we sow. This man can never “repay his debt” to society. That isn’t even possible, after his actions that have been described here. No way.
If he has made his soul right with the Lord, then that is between him and the Lord, and no punishment on this earth will be able to take that away from him.
I have a good friend who is in prison for murder. He went down a VERY wrong path, making poor choices regarding alcohol and relationships, and ended up somewhere he never imagined he would be. He turned his back on God but was brought to his knees when he saw what he had become and how his own hands had taken another’s life. He is in prison and will be there for the rest of his life, but he has never once used his “conversion” as a plea for mercy. Never. He knows that he committed a crime, and he now has to spend the rest of his days in prison. But oddly enough, what he has learned is that he would rather be locked up in prison and free in his soul than free in the world and bound in his soul.
Sally, many people would try to abuse Christianity for their own means. It does alarm me. I cannot say if this man is doing this, because I do not know his heart. However, it does not discredit my faith when someone chooses to misuse it, misinterpret it, or manipulate it for a self-serving purpose.
And I noticed that you have no derogatory comments regarding the atheistic, communist regime of Pol Pot under which this man worked before…but you choose instead to finger Christianity as a culprit here? Or am I just misreading what you’ve posted?
Posted by: Kel at May 24, 2008 11:13 PM
……………………..
I would be drawing a paralell to a Communist Regime and a Christian regime. Something that I am sure is not lost on Eav. That you would not discredit the misuse of Christianity by a criminal of such magnitude is disturbing.
Sally,
Like Kel I must wonder if I am misreading your post. The man did indeed function under an atheistic communist regime, he persecuted both Christian and Buddhist believers and just hid among Christian mission workers to protect himself.
Posted by: Mary at May 24, 2008 11:42 PM
………………..
That would sum it up Mary.
How is what this guy Eav did any worse than what abortion does?
Why are pro-aborts so blinded by the fact that abortion is equally evil?
What will it take for pro-aborts to realize that abortion is a heinous crime?
How can a pro-abort justify the murder of an innocent child? Because of the plight of the mother? Becuase the mother says it OK to kill her unborn child, that makes it OK?
And the readiness of pro-aborts to condemn this guy after his conversion, I find very strange. Also, to question his conversion is equally bizarre when pro-aborts pride themselves in being non-judgemental.
Does this point to Liberalism’s sociopathy?
“I would be drawing a paralell to a Communist Regime and a Christian regime. Something that I am sure is not lost on Eav. That you would not discredit the misuse of Christianity by a criminal of such magnitude is disturbing.”
Sally, you’ve misunderstood what I have posted (probably on purpose). I said this:
“Sally, many people would try to abuse Christianity for their own means. It does alarm me. I cannot say if this man is doing this, because I do not know his heart. However, it does not discredit my faith when someone chooses to misuse it, misinterpret it, or manipulate it for a self-serving purpose.”
I do not know if this man is misusing Christianity to simply save his own skin. If he is, then yes, it alarms and disturbs me.
What I said was that for someone to MISUSE and manipulate Christianity to serve themselves does NOT discredit the Christian faith.
It discredits the person who misinterprets and misuses it.
yllas: But wait, Dogma Doug will soon rise to the podium and defend this bigot from being a ally of abortion propagandist no matter how bigoted they are. Or vandals too. Right Dogma Doug?
Hey Fruitbat. How ya doin’?
You’ve proved time and again that you’re by far the most bigoted person here.
There have been some perceptive comments about you.
Way back when, Zeke had a good paragraph about you being an anti-Protestant Nazi.
“From what I’ve seen on this website, yllas is just an idiot, even if a bit of a savant with obsessions.”
Posted by: Terry G at April 30, 2008 9:40 PM
Do you pretend to be Catholic? Your behavior here shows you to be decidedly un-Christian.
Can you possibly think that your behavior is somehow “helpful” to the pro-life position?
Posted by: Jenna at May 20, 2008 2:56 PM
yllis is a voodoo-doll sticking pins in itself.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 21, 2008 10:13 PM
If everybody who claimed to be “pro-life” was like yllas, then women would not have to worry about the issue, and pro-choicers would be pretty much uncontested in argument.
Not a bad thing, eh? ; )
If everybody who claimed to be “pro-life” was like yllas, then women would not have to worry about the issue, and pro-choicers would be pretty much uncontested in argument.
Not a bad thing, eh? ; )
Posted by: Doug at May 26, 2008 8:34 PM
…………………………………………………………..
yllas is the freak most likely to be preparing a basement to hide the bodies. Stalked you and I from the AOL boards Doug.
Very weird that it would lump us together in it’s warped mind.
Scary that it found a safe place in Jill’s blog land.
Sally, ha! I didn’t know that yllas had been on AOL, nor even that you had.
Anyway, like I said… : )
Defending and apologizing for bigots and vandals is your business Dogma Doug.
I use the words and writing of the anti-Catholic bigot named Sad Eyed Sally, and you use your dogmatic mind to defend the bigot.
Sally is a typical case of growing up in a house filled with stories and myths that confirm her bigotry, just as you, Dogma Doug, grew up in a house devoted/praying to a murdering God. I give you a pat on the back Dogma Doug, for leaving the pre-ordained murderous religion of your parent’s. Now that was the absolute correct decision Dogma Doug, and I bet there is no agnostic doubt in your dogmatic mind for abandoning such a version of God. Too bad, you traded in their murderous God for your murderous decision to allow the murder of innocent human beings with a zeal founded on a absolute statement of, ” no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”. Intellectually and morally, your owned by your parent’s murderous God to this day. Quite ironic, if you would ever be intellectually honest with yourself Dogma Doug. Same as Sad Eyed Sally. She, just adding on her anti-Catholic bigotry for extra unction.
That you defend a anti-Catholic bigot is natural for ya Dogma Doug, and only a dogmatist would write those words; “that no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
Try as you may Dogma Doug, Sad Eyed Sally is a third generation, anti-Catholic bigot, that conditions her reality for killing innocent human beings.
That’s silly, yllas. You’re just retreating into loopy, incoherent babble again. You’re the one with the dogma.
Ah, BTW Dogma Doug,
You’ve got a bad case of the “yllasitis”, which is diagnosed by pasting and copying the board post from other people(whoever a Jenna, Terry G, is?) concerning Yllas.
Next thing a person with “yllasitis” does is consult with a anti-Catholic bigot, whose name is a mirror image of yllas, and ask her to post as a mind puppet of Dogma Doug.
Imagine the mental condition of such a person with yllasitis who has cluttered up and saved to his hard drive post about yllas.
Your being dogmatic again Doug. Your philosohical position only differs from your parent’s pre-ordained, murdering God by only eliminating that invisible being.
Who can blame a pro murdering materialist/agnostic for denying what is invisible? That was the correct decision Dogma Doug.
I didn’t put the thoughts and philosophy in your head Dogma Doug, your decision to murder innocent life begins with your attempt at trying to reconcile a world you were born into that makes sense by only using your senses.
Millions of mainline Christians came to the same conclusion that abortion is a virtuous and good action of God and therefore their abortion is God approved. It’s a dogmatic position the same as your personal dogma for abortion.
Your doing a good deed, minus God, Dogma Doug in murdering innocent human beings.
Heh.
@Doug,
” no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
I am that argument …. and it is not the words I do/don’t say …. but it is I, one of the living human beings, who argues that human life is more precious than death/suicide/choice. Prove ME wrong!
Why don’t I just put a bullet in my brain (besides not being able to afford the gun nor even the ammo.) … give me one (just one) good reason. You can even use Aquinas ….
Maybe, PL’ers have it all wrong …. PC recognize life as some far-off possibility …maybe. They like being so close to death … to have little to no meaning or significance.
” no one has a good argument against abortion, they just think they do”.
I am that argument …. and it is not the words I do/don’t say …. but it is I, one of the living human beings, who argues that human life is more precious than death/suicide/choice. Prove ME wrong!
John, it’s not that you are “wrong.” Indeed, as you’ve noted many times, we are all different. Yet does your existence mean that we should take away the freedom that women currently have? No, I do not think so – there is not a good enough argument against abortion as we have it to that extent.
…..
Why don’t I just put a bullet in my brain (besides not being able to afford the gun nor even the ammo.) … give me one (just one) good reason. You can even use Aquinas ….
Because you don’t want to.
……
Maybe, PL’ers have it all wrong …. PC recognize life as some far-off possibility …maybe. They like being so close to death … to have little to no meaning or significance.
@@
Pro-Choicers are recognizing the woman’s choice; they are weighing the pregnant woman’s wishes above those of people who are not the ones pregnant.
Pro-Choicers are recognizing the woman’s choice; they are weighing the pregnant woman’s wishes above those of people who are not the ones pregnant.
Posted by: Doug at May 28, 2008 6:35 AM
If this is right, then we should allow anyone to to make their own choices for themselves. No laws, because someone might not like the law. You might say that “abortion hurts no one”. Well think about the siblings of the aborted child who will never have the joy of growing up with that brother or sister. Loneliness is a big problem in our society and abortion certainly isn’t helping.
Who is going to take care of our aging population? I think we need to worry more about these types of issues than we do.
@Doug,
“Yet does your existence mean that we should take away the freedom that women currently have? No, I do not think so – there is not a good enough argument against abortion as we have it to that extent.”
I have discussed numerous ways that present itself showing that a woman’s choice may be suspect of being freely choosing … anywhere from external pressure of bf/husbands/parents (coercion)… to a strong possibility for the presence of depression (moods of pregnant woman) …. its like giving a girl with anorexia the rope and a little coaching on how to make a noose. Plus there is the high possibility of maternal zinc deficiency; etc.
And on your side, you keep saying it’s her free choice … ie. it’s using the freedom she does have …. huh? She does make a choice, but is the choice free in any sense of the word that means little more than choosing what door to enter a building … whoopy-sh**!
The reason I say use me as an example is that I want a person to grow into a full meaning of freedom. I am of the opinion that her experience of freedom is so small it is almost negligable. Its like asking one of your 10 yr-old nephews to drive your car on the highway. Your nephew may be competent: does it say anything about his uncle (besides gross stupidity)? Will you argue that you did not wish to interfere with the freedom he does have?
John, exactly. Even Guttmacher admits that the majority of women who choose abortion do so because they feel pressured to by a variety of different factors. Since when is this “free choice”? I call it unchoice.
http://www.unfairchoice.info/Coerced.htm
then we should allow anyone to to make their own choices for themselves. No laws, because someone might not like the law.
Janet, while for most things we do allow the individual to decide, there are still a good number of areas where we want laws. On most things, it’s largely one way or the other. Abortion is an interesting one because there is a lot of sentiment on both sides.
……
You might say that “abortion hurts no one”. Well think about the siblings of the aborted child who will never have the joy of growing up with that brother or sister.
Siblings can be both good and bad. If the pregnant woman feels that her existing kids need a sibling, then she will probably factor that into her decision.
……
Loneliness is a big problem in our society and abortion certainly isn’t helping.
“More people,” per se, is no guarantee that loneliness will go down.
……
Who is going to take care of our aging population? I think we need to worry more about these types of issues than we do.
Janet, I agree that it’s a big concern, but to view the population as a “Ponzi scheme” where ever-increasing numbers are required for elder care only goes so far, and such things are faulty logic in the first place.
Beyond that, does a given woman have an obligation to continue a pregnancy just because “old people need care”? I do not think so.
I have discussed numerous ways that present itself showing that a woman’s choice may be suspect of being freely choosing … anywhere from external pressure of bf/husbands/parents (coercion)… to a strong possibility for the presence of depression (moods of pregnant woman) …. its like giving a girl with anorexia the rope and a little coaching on how to make a noose. Plus there is the high possibility of maternal zinc deficiency; etc.
John, we’ve been though the zinc deal before – if supplementation is needed then I’m all for it. There is no “free choosing” outside of all the factors involved for the woman. Of course she has her reasons, and they may include any, all, or none of the things you mention.
……
And on your side, you keep saying it’s her free choice … ie. it’s using the freedom she does have …. huh? She does make a choice, but is the choice free in any sense of the word that means little more than choosing what door to enter a building … whoopy-sh**!
Easy for you to say, but tell her. Of course she will have her reasons, and I don’t see that it’s your or my place to tell her they are not good enough, etc.
……
The reason I say use me as an example is that I want a person to grow into a full meaning of freedom. I am of the opinion that her experience of freedom is so small it is almost negligable.
Again, tell her. Vast number of women (and men) do not see this as a “negligible” thing.
……
Its like asking one of your 10 yr-old nephews to drive your car on the highway. Your nephew may be competent: does it say anything about his uncle (besides gross stupidity)? Will you argue that you did not wish to interfere with the freedom he does have?
He doesn’t have that freedom, to start with, any more than he does to not attend school, to vote, etc.
I see plenty of good reasons to leave the laws regarding 10 year olds and driving as they are, and the same for leaving the laws on abortion the way they are.
Even Guttmacher admits that the majority of women who choose abortion do so because they feel pressured to by a variety of different factors. Since when is this “free choice”? I call it unchoice.
Bethany, sure – women have reasons – nobody is saying differently. Of course the decision is not made without regard to the woman’s situation.
Indeed, many women might choose differently if things were different, and that’s true for all of us in most situations.
For example, if a woman doesn’t feel she can support kids or more kids, and she’s really close to 50/50 on it, and people help her financially, then I certainly have nothing against that.
Yet another woman may simply not want kids, no matter what, and thus that’s not going to matter to her.
Should a woman feel forced to have an abortion at any time Doug?
Of course the decision is not made without regard to the woman’s situation.
What does that sentence mean? Please elucidate.
Should a woman feel forced to have an abortion at any time Doug?
Bethany, ideally, other than her wishes to have kids or not, then I say no, i.e. if it’s only because she’s with an abusive guy, lacks money, etc., and otherwise she’d want to continue the pregnancy, then that’s a shame, IMO.
…..
“Of course the decision is not made without regard to the woman’s situation.”
What does that sentence mean? Please elucidate.
Whoa, we’re trotting out the more elaborate terminogy, eh? Mind you, I don’t expostulate to a wholesome ration of prolix verbosity, if not of floribund circumlocution.
I mean that it’s certainly not necessarily only on a “pure” basis of wanting to have kids or not.
As above, if there’s no feeling that the situation makes a difference, i.e. that no matter what the woman wants the pregnancy or not, then that’s one thing.
But it’s another, and what I think is the usual deal, if she takes her situation into account, whatever it is. Thus, saying in effect that “legal abortion is ‘bad’ because sometimes women want abortions due to their situation” makes no sense to me. One may or may not have their objections to abortion, whatever they are, but that women have varying reasons for wanting abortions is just a given.
Going back to that ideal world, it’d be nice if people never conceived versus having unwanted pregnancies.
Bethany, ideally, other than her wishes to have kids or not, then I say no, i.e. if it’s only because she’s with an abusive guy, lacks money, etc., and otherwise she’d want to continue the pregnancy, then that’s a shame, IMO.
And Guttmacher stats confirm that the MAJORITY of cases are for this reason? It’s just “a shame”, Doug? What do you plan to do to help these women who were denied “choice”, Doug? Because isn’t that what you’re fighting for, to protect their right to choose freely? Or is it simply abortion you are protecting under the guise of choice?
Whoa, we’re trotting out the more elaborate terminogy, eh? Mind you, I don’t expostulate to a wholesome ration of prolix verbosity, if not of floribund circumlocution.
I got tired of saying “clarify” and needed a new word. lol
As above, if there’s no feeling that the situation makes a difference, i.e. that no matter what the woman wants the pregnancy or not, then that’s one thing.
But it’s another, and what I think is the usual deal, if she takes her situation into account, whatever it is. Thus, saying in effect that “legal abortion is ‘bad’ because sometimes women want abortions due to their situation” makes no sense to me. One may or may not have their objections to abortion, whatever they are, but that women have varying reasons for wanting abortions is just a given.
The reason it doesn’t make sense to you is because you equate abortion to being a “choice”… just like if a woman “chooses” to have breast implant surgery or smoke, etc.
If I look at it from that angle, your argument would make sense, because if the woman chooses to do something with her body that she regrets later on, it really doesn’t mean we should make it illegal. It’s a shame, but nothing more.
In your eyes, that’s how it is with abortion. You think abortion is nothing more than something the woman is doing with her own body, and a choice she is making for herself and herself alone.
And you cannot see it any other lens, because you refuse to care that abortion involves more than one person.
I got tired of saying “clarify” and needed a new word. lol
Hee hee hee right on, Bethany, I hear ya.
…..
And Guttmacher stats confirm that the MAJORITY of cases are for this reason? It’s just “a shame”, Doug? What do you plan to do to help these women who were denied “choice”, Doug? Because isn’t that what you’re fighting for, to protect their right to choose freely? Or is it simply abortion you are protecting under the guise of choice?
I am saying it’s a shame if one’s circumstances impact one’s desires so negatively. If a woman really, really wants to have kids, then she’s going to be sad if she can’t support them, etc. I don’t want her to be sad just as I don’t want women legally forced to continue pregnancies they don’t want.
They weren’t “denied choice,” they were confronted with reality just as we all are – the world is not a “perfect” place and we can’t always have exactly what we dream of. Our choices are always in relation to the possible, not the “ideal.”
I don’t have the “free choice” to be a pro basketball player or a world-class limbo-dancer, for example.
The reason it doesn’t make sense to you is because you equate abortion to being a “choice”… just like if a woman “chooses” to have breast implant surgery or smoke, etc.
If I look at it from that angle, your argument would make sense, because if the woman chooses to do something with her body that she regrets later on, it really doesn’t mean we should make it illegal. It’s a shame, but nothing more.
Well good gravy, Bethany (didn’t want to use “grief” again), it indeed is a choice – women choose to continue pregnancies or to end them. That’s true no matter how much one is opposed to women having the legal freedom to do so.
……
In your eyes, that’s how it is with abortion. You think abortion is nothing more than something the woman is doing with her own body, and a choice she is making for herself and herself alone.
True, but only to a point. As development continues, I do see a mixture of things – the consideration not only of the woman but also of the unborn – and I’m somewhat conflicted for the weeks early in the 20s, for example, and then after viability I don’t weigh the woman’s desires as the most important.
…..
And you cannot see it any other lens, because you refuse to care that abortion involves more than one person.
No, that’s untrue. It is not a matter of “caring about the other person,” because there is no agreement that the unborn are people in that way.
It’s not a “refusal to care,” either, because there’s no conscious decision to go one way or the other. It’s a matter of belief, and you and I simply believe different things. It’s not like I (or you) wake up each day or woke up one day in the past and said, “I’m going to think this, and refuse to think that…” There’s always a premise of us thinking one way, from the get-go, and all else follows.
It’s not like you “refuse to care” about the woman, either – you are just valuing the unborn life more than you are valuing what the woman wants.
Yes! I value life above desire.
Okay we still disagree but at least you understand my point of view.
Good gravy. lol
No one had taken away a woman’s “right” to abort her child before abortion was legalized. If she wanted to find a way to get one, she did.
The problem is that by legalizing this “right to an abortion”, the Supreme Court gave a nod of approval to the genocide of the unborn.
Can we really deny that there are plenty of people who think that if something is LEGAL, then it is therefore SAFE and without consequence? I’ve met many people who think that’s what “legal” actually means.
Tell me this: if, say, illegal drug use (such as the heroin which killed one of my closest friends two months ago) were legalized tomorrow, would its use increase, even though we KNOW of its harm to the human body–even to the point of death? You better believe it! Because LEGALITY implies that something is beneficial, or at the very least, “okay.” People get drugs on the streets now, under penalty of arrest (never stopped them, though), and people would get them tomorrow if it were legal–except they wouldn’t have to go to drug houses to get them. The same dealers could set up storefront shops. That’s what happened with abortion.
We put warning labels on tobacco products, but there are no warning labels for abortion. In fact, the abortion industry fights tooth and nail against ANY warning labels. Might be bad for business. And ultrasounds are out of the question too. After all, ignorance is good for business.
Bethany said: “In your eyes, that’s how it is with abortion. You think abortion is nothing more than something the woman is doing with her own body, and a choice she is making for herself and herself alone.”
And yet, even with the drug use I mentioned, we restrict it and do not give approval to it by legalizing it. Why? Because IT IS HARMFUL to the person who is using it. (Not to mention it affects everyone around that person, and not in a good way.) You’re right, Bethany, the woman aborting her child is not making the choice for herself alone–but she is making it selfishly.
Sarcasm alert (though many of my posts are sarcastic): Women must have their abortions. To force them to do without would just be cruel! Just like it’s cruel to force a drug addict to go without his self-destructive drugs. No, we wouldn’t want to tell them what they can do with their bodies, now would we?
*apologies for the rambling post. It’s hard to concentrate with two kids running in and out of the house, singing and dancing–though I wouldn’t have it any other way. :D *
“True, but only to a point. As development continues, I do see a mixture of things – the consideration not only of the woman but also of the unborn – and I’m somewhat conflicted for the weeks early in the 20s, for example, and then after viability I don’t weigh the woman’s desires as the most important.”
If I may ask, why is that, Doug?
“Yes! I value life above desire”
I agree. When “what I want” trumps the life of another human being, we’ve got a problem, people.
Quoting myself: Tell me this: if, say, illegal drug use (such as the heroin which killed one of my closest friends two months ago) were legalized tomorrow, would its use increase, even though we KNOW of its harm to the human body–even to the point of death? You better believe it!
haha, I answered my own question! :D *doh!* Headache and noisy kiddos–not a good combination. :P
Kel, great posts! Your kids sound sweet…mine are making noise right now too. They just finished all their schoolwork, ate some coffeecake and are watching Lilo and stitch and laughing their heads off. :D
Kel, no problem with “rambling” posts – I’ve had people looking for a lost set of keys here, calling each other, calling me, calling each other names. people looking all over the place, finally they turned up.
Many women did get abortions prior to it being legal, but what we are talking about is the legal right to have an abortion. Legal abortion is not “genocide.” The definition doesn’t fit, and what we have are most pregnancies being willingly continued in the first place. Some women do decide to end pregnancies but it’s on an individual basis. It’s not like women say, “I will have an abortion because I want to eradicate the human race.”
Can we really deny that there are plenty of people who think that if something is LEGAL, then it is therefore SAFE and without consequence? I’ve met many people who think that’s what “legal” actually means.
Sounds like an oversimplification to me. “Without consequence”? Heck, women want abortions because the consequence is an ended pregnancy. I think few people would state that there is zero risk in having an abortion, though it’s a very safe medical procedure, and early on in pregancy it’s incredibly safe. But I agree that just because a thing is legal it doesn’t necessarily follow that what many people might think is true.
……
We put warning labels on tobacco products, but there are no warning labels for abortion. In fact, the abortion industry fights tooth and nail against ANY warning labels. Might be bad for business. And ultrasounds are out of the question too. After all, ignorance is good for business.
Certainly, heroin use would go up if it were legal. Yet if we’re going to advocate warning labels for abortion, then it applies doubly, trebly, heck, 10 or 11 or 15 times over for continuing pregnancies and giving birth, due to the increased risk to the woman.
There are no guarantees that we’re all going to be 100% satisfied with every choice we make, forever. That’s no good reason to take away our freedom to make those choices.
Back in the 70’s Ann Landers had a big poll, and 70% of over 10,000 people said that if they could do it all over again, they wouldn’t have kids. Surprisingly high, but even if the true figure is 50 or 30 or even 10%, that shows you that choosing to continue pregnancies won’t always be seen as perfect or good or without (bad) consequences.
As far as “selfish,” all our desire comes from the self, all our motivation boils down to what we want the most and that which is possible from among our available choices. If we’re going to use “selfish” in a pejorative way, then I’d say it’s a person thinking that what they want necessarily overrules what the pregnant woman wants.
I think it is cruel to forbid a woman having an abortion just as it’s cruel to forbid her from continuing a wanted one.
……
“As development continues, I do see a mixture of things – the consideration not only of the woman but also of the unborn – and I’m somewhat conflicted for the weeks early in the 20s, for example, and then after viability I don’t weigh the woman’s desires as the most important.”
If I may ask, why is that, Doug?
At viability it’s no longer only a question of the woman staying pregnant or not, since delivery can be induced. In addition, since life outside the womb is then possible, I agree with the principle in Roe that the individual states can choose to protect the life then, if they want to. I think it’s reasonable for women to end pregenancies before that, if they don’t want to be pregnant.
The toughest time for me is around 22 or 23 weeks, when some awareness could be developing in the fetus. On balance I’m still for elective abortion to viability, but we’re getting close with the 22/23 weeks, and if there’s a gray are that’s it for me.
If we could settle on a time for stopping elective abortion, be it 24 or 22 or 20 weeks, I’d be in favor of it.
…..
When “what I want” trumps the life of another human being, we’ve got a problem, people.
Again, people have been having abortions for thousands and thousands of years, and societies the world over, for all of recorded time, haven’t attributed personhood and rights prior to birth. Do you really think that now, all of a sudden, we have a problem?
Okay we still disagree but at least you understand my point of view.
I think I do, Bethany.
I guess that in the unattainable “perfect world” nobody would get pregnant if they didn’t want to be. Both you and I would have no objections there, I reckon.
Failing that, I’d much rather that people had earlier abortions rather than later ones.
“It’s not like women say, “I will have an abortion because I want to eradicate the human race.”
LOL-well, no. If they wanted to insure that they never had children, they’d have themselves surgically sterilized. It would be better than killing off one’s progeny, in my opinion.
However, you have China and India who are killing off female children and “illegally born” children, or fining families for these children. I would say population control is at the top of their agenda, and their governments have shown little respect for human life as it is. Abortion (and FORCED sterilization) are dandy ways for people to begin the eradication of the human race collectively, even if not intentionally.
“Certainly, heroin use would go up if it were legal. Yet if we’re going to advocate warning labels for abortion, then it applies doubly, trebly, heck, 10 or 11 or 15 times over for continuing pregnancies and giving birth, due to the increased risk to the woman.”
I think most women who go through pregnancy realize that there is great risk and pain involved. Which is why they’re put under a doctor’s care, them AND their babies, as soon as possible. This way, when problems occur, they can be treated. But childbirth is a natural process for which the female body was designed (we have the organs necessary for such a capability). Elective abortion and drug abuse are not natural things, they abuse and misuse our body’s organs for unintended purposes.
“The toughest time for me is around 22 or 23 weeks, when some awareness could be developing in the fetus. On balance I’m still for elective abortion to viability, but we’re getting close with the 22/23 weeks, and if there’s a gray are that’s it for me.”
Okay, so you’re basing your view on possible fetal awareness, and not personhood as deemed by “society?” Or am I misunderstanding you?
“Again, people have been having abortions for thousands and thousands of years, and societies the world over, for all of recorded time, haven’t attributed personhood and rights prior to birth. Do you really think that now, all of a sudden, we have a problem?”
“All of a sudden?” Nope. However, I’ve only been on this earth for a certain amount of years, so I wasn’t able to stand up against abortion thousands of years ago. There were others who took that stand. Now is my time to stand up and do what I believe is right. This problem has been around for a very long time and doesn’t appear to be going away. Does that make it okay? I don’t believe so.
What I would say to your comment is that apparently, abortion is a problem that has plagued the human race with great bloodshed for thousands of years, as has infanticide. It’s the same thing to me. So, because it’s gone on from time immemorial, we should just overlook it? That’s something I cannot do.
Even if I “lose” the battle, I’d rather be on the losing side, fighting for what’s right and true than on the “winning” side, which disregards the humanity of the innocents.
And Bethany, my kids are finally sitting down, watching Little House on the Prairie! LOL For some reason they are mesmerized by that show. But then, I always loved it, too. :)
Who is going to take care of our aging population? I think we need to worry more about these types of issues than we do
Doug said: Janet, I agree that it’s a big concern, but to view the population as a “Ponzi scheme” where ever-increasing numbers are required for elder care only goes so far, and such things are faulty logic in the first place.
Doug, Think in terms of a family (remember those?), not a “Ponzi scheme”. A mother and father have a better chance at being well taken care of in their old age the more children they have. Odds are better that at least one child will be available to help with their care.
However, you have China and India who are killing off female children and “illegally born” children, or fining families for these children. I would say population control is at the top of their agenda, and their governments have shown little respect for human life as it is. Abortion (and FORCED sterilization) are dandy ways for people to begin the eradication of the human race collectively, even if not intentionally.
Dang, Kel, you’ve got staying power…
Yeah, I guess it would be a way to begin “eradication,” but the population is still growing fast. Tell you what – if we ever actually are in danger of becoming extinct, etc., then I bet you’d see a major shift in the sentiment on abortion.
Yeah, population control is behind some decisions in those countries – they felt they had to do something. Not saying they went about it in a good way, though, and certainly there are big problems coming due to a shortage of women relative to men.
……
Okay, so you’re basing your view on possible fetal awareness, and not personhood as deemed by “society?” Or am I misunderstanding you?
You’re right – you’d asked about my opinion and I do feel conflicted during some stages of gestation – I don’t see it as all one way or the other.
To this point in time (now), personhood isn’t granted until birth, and my own personal feeling is that personhood develops over time, almost always, in gestation. Personality, awareness, emotion, etc.
So, two different things – society’s position and the “legal human being” status in the full sense, and then my opinion of what a “person” is.
Who is going to take care of our aging population? I think we need to worry more about these types of issues than we do.
“Janet, I agree that it’s a big concern, but to view the population as a “Ponzi scheme” where ever-increasing numbers are required for elder care only goes so far, and such things are faulty logic in the first place.”
Doug, Think in terms of a family (remember those?), not a “Ponzi scheme”. A mother and father have a better chance at being well taken care of in their old age the more children they have. Odds are better that at least one child will be available to help with their care.
Agreed. In many parts of the world people are so desperate and so worried (rightly so) about getting by in old age that they have as many kids as possible, and that is a heck of a thing IMO.
Doug, Think in terms of a family (remember those?), not a “Ponzi scheme”. A mother and father have a better chance at being well taken care of in their old age the more children they have. Odds are better that at least one child will be available to help with their care.
Agreed. In many parts of the world people are so desperate and so worried (rightly so) about getting by in old age that they have as many kids as possible, and that is a heck of a thing IMO.
“A heck of a thing”? So caring for the people who are here is not as important as keeping the population down? That’s backwards. Why don’t we set off a nuclear bomb and just get it over with right now if that’s your thinking?
Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug……what are we going to do with you????
“A heck of a thing”? So caring for the people who are here is not as important as keeping the population down? That’s backwards. Why don’t we set off a nuclear bomb and just get it over with right now if that’s your thinking?
Janet, that’s not it. I’m saying it is a sad thing when people feel compelled to have as many children as possible, and this is sometimes like 12 or 15, in the hope that they can be cared for in old age.
It’s reflective of cultures where there are many big problems – ones that you and I would agree upon, as well.
I see being fearful of one’s old age to that extent as a shame, and I also see really wanting to have kids (for other reasons than fear) and not having enough money to support them, for example, as a shame too.
…..
Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug, Doug……what are we going to do with you????
Beat me up with a styrofoam baseball bat? Warm up Bethany’s trash compactor? Make me go visit yllas at the insane asylum?
Doug: That’s a good place to start. :)
“Dang, Kel, you’ve got staying power…”
Is that code for “shaddup, ya post too much”? :D
“You’re right – you’d asked about my opinion and I do feel conflicted during some stages of gestation – I don’t see it as all one way or the other.
To this point in time (now), personhood isn’t granted until birth, and my own personal feeling is that personhood develops over time, almost always, in gestation. Personality, awareness, emotion, etc.”
Thank you for explaining your personal view on this, Doug. I’d be curious to know of a time range when you feel these things might develop.
However, I would propose that personality, awareness, and emotion are not what make us human, but are simply a part of our humanity. As I’ve said before, I feel it’s frightening for a judge (or even “society”) to arbitrarily decide who is and who is not a person…it reminds me too much of Nazism and slave ownership. :(
It used to seem absurd to American society that slaves could be looked upon as “people” and not chattel. Eventually, the truth won out.
I hope that one day, society will recognize that the unborn are the ones now treated as personal property, to be disposed of as we see fit–and that it will end.
Hey, Doug, we had spoken a bit about the Terri Schiavo case and there is an article I stumbled upon this evening that I thought might interest you.
I’m sorry, I don’t know how to use html tags, so I hope this link shows up. If not, just cut and paste, please. :D
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3004892.ece
Morning, Kel.
I think that emotion, awareness, etc., are developing during the weeks in the 20’s. When the sensory nerves are hooked up, through the thalamus, to the cerebral cortex, and the whole nervous system is operational and “up and running” enough, that’s where I’d say it lies. I know all the senses don’t develop at the same time, and one fetus will differ from another. By 26 weeks most fetuses have “something” going on, and by 30 weeks a normal fetus will largely just need to increase in size – the nervous system is really “there” and operating, from what I’ve read.
Also, some may have some awareness earlier, 25 weeks, 24, 23…. Jill (Stanek) said her grandson was born at 25 weeks and cried, so I definitely think there was sense perception in that case, for example.
There are also cases of people having very under-developed brains, yet still displaying emotion, etc., and I realize there is a lot we don’t know about all this stuff.
Agreed 100% that awareness, etc., is not what makes us human. Just having human DNA is enough for that.
On society attributing personhood, okay, you don’t like it, but it’s a societal construct, so it’s just gonna be there – the granting or not of it. Not saying it’s impossible to attribute it earlier than birth, either.
What is bad to me about slavery is that the will of a thinking, feeling person is being subverted to another person. Yes, we’re “human” from conception, but in my opinion what makes us people is our brains, our tool-making and using capabilities, our capacity for knowledge and the ability to pass it to later generations, etc. If we weren’t creatures of memory and “reason” and moral feelings, there wouldn’t be any such discussions as you and I are having in the first place.
I’m pro-choice because I don’t think the will of pregnant women should be subverted to those who want to legally forbid her from having an abortion. I see less suffering with things as we have them now, versus having abortion be illegal.
If there were no unwanted pregnancies, then both you and I’d be fine with things, so I’m thinking that foolproof birth control (that everybody who didn’t want to be pregnant would use) is the best way to go. A tall order, I know.
@Doug,
Is an unwanted pregnancy just another STD, solved by abortion? … seems to be the position of B. Obama.
Great article, Kel. Amazing stuff, and the “brain scanning” is very interesting. Ah, to be able to really “see” what’s going on…
John, what has Obama said that makes you think that?
No, pregnancy is not an “STD,” it’s an undesired situation.
(unwanted pregnancy)
Hi Doug. I found the article to be really interesting, too. Had no idea they could do all of those things with brain scans.
“What is bad to me about slavery is that the will of a thinking, feeling person is being subverted to another person. Yes, we’re “human” from conception, but in my opinion what makes us people is our brains, our tool-making and using capabilities, our capacity for knowledge and the ability to pass it to later generations, etc. If we weren’t creatures of memory and “reason” and moral feelings, there wouldn’t be any such discussions as you and I are having in the first place. ”
So, am I correct in assuming that this is reasonable to you: to take the life of an unborn person who isn’t, in your opinion, “thinking” or “feeling” or whose awareness may not at this time be scientifically provable, despite the biological fact that HE IS HUMAN? (However, it doesn’t matter that he is human, because since we can’t prove his awareness, he is therefore disposable, subject to the will of the mother.)
Would you be in agreement with that?
If these statements are acceptable to some, I can easily see how someone like Peter Singer at Princeton can go down the slippery slope to say it would be acceptable for the mother to kill even her BORN child up to a certain age.
When we begin to devalue human life by saying that if a human is not “thinking, feeling, or aware” that we know of, it’s okay to dispose of that life…well, why draw the line there? I guess that’s what I’m saying. What about if the person doesn’t think at the “level” WE feel they should? What if the person is only partially aware?
But then, I guess we already eliminate lives like this, as I mentioned before with Terri Schiavo. And she isn’t the only one who has had her life ended in such a manner.
I’m just appalled that anyone can just explain away (and snuff out) the life of another human being. It disgusts me. :(
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963
Peter Singer and what he said, just for reference’s sake.
So, am I correct in assuming that this is reasonable to you: to take the life of an unborn person who isn’t, in your opinion, “thinking” or “feeling” or whose awareness may not at this time be scientifically provable, despite the biological fact that HE IS HUMAN?
Kel, you’re stretching things by saying “person,” there. There’s no agreement that it applies and of course the abortion debate exists in large part due to the fact that society says “not a person,” in the first place.
Meanwhile, the pregnant woman is a thinking, feeling person without doubt, and while I realize you don’t like abortion, I think you don’t suffer nearly as much from legal abortion as the pregnant woman may suffer if denied an abortion. The unborn are not suffering at all, here. I also realize that can be argued too, but to a point in gestation I think it’s reasonable to say “no suffering.”
…..
(However, it doesn’t matter that he is human, because since we can’t prove his awareness, he is therefore disposable, subject to the will of the mother.)
Would you be in agreement with that?
As far as “disposable,” I am leaving that up to the woman or couple. “Human,” yes, without doubt – that’s not at issue.
……
I don’t think there’s any significant amount of sentiment for what Singer said, and personhood and rights have been attributed at birth in most societies, all over the world, for thousands and thousands of years. Not much chance of stuff changing there.
If anything, I’d say it will be sheer population pressure itself that results in a lowering of the valuation put on life.
“Kel, you’re stretching things by saying “person,” there. There’s no agreement that it applies and of course the abortion debate exists in large part due to the fact that society says “not a person,” in the first place.”
Well, Doug, thanks for dancing around my entire statement because you didn’t care for the word I used. :D I’m going to take your hand wringing over the pregnant woman’s feelings as a “yes.”
“I think you don’t suffer nearly as much from legal abortion as the pregnant woman may suffer if denied an abortion. The unborn are not suffering at all, here. I also realize that can be argued too, but to a point in gestation I think it’s reasonable to say “no suffering.””
Pregnant women can suffer when they obtain abortions, as well (despite the denial and all the jabs at childbirth on this site)…suffering is a part of life, regardless. We are continually making decisions to try and avoid suffering in our own lives, but often we end up hurting ourselves and others in the process, especially when we make those decisions without regard to anyone else. Gotta look out for number one and all that. It leads to an empty existence, but eh, what do we care? It’s OUR RIGHT!
I would have to say that a woman who becomes pregnant (and doesn’t want to be) has a tough road either way…but one way leads to the death of another human and one does not. One choice is made in fear, desperation, or selfishness, and the other is not (and she doesn’t have to raise the child herself, after all). But let’s take what we think is the “easy road.” I mean, that’s what we teach our kids, right? “Take the easy way out, it builds character!” No? Hmm…
Side note: I have laughed when I’ve heard PCers say “Your God is pro-choice.” In many cases, I think they must be referring to the scripture where the Lord says “Now I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses…now choose life, that you and your children may live.” They shout, “SEE? SEE!? He says to CHOOSE! Pro-choice.” LOL People will do and say anything to make their selfish decisions seem acceptable to them. Rationalizing is rampant.
“The unborn are not suffering at all, here. I also realize that can be argued too, but to a point in gestation I think it’s reasonable to say “no suffering.””
Yes, it can be argued. ;) Do you know this for a fact, Doug, that the unborn do not suffer? Do you think that if we could do brain scans on babies about to be aborted (as if THAT would ever happen), that we might be surprised by what we find, just as we’ve been surprised recently by research on brain scans of PVS patients that have detected the presence of PAIN and other types of awareness? And IF by chance, we could say with an amount of certainty that there IS fetal pain, would it change anything?
I didn’t think so. It wouldn’t matter, because we mustn’t allow an inconvenient child to get in the way of our goals and dreams. Then we might have to suffer a little, and goodness knows, any amount of suffering just sucks! And besides, stretch marks don’t look good in bikinis.
We must empower ourselves by ANY means possible.
*okay, now I am putting my sarcastic self to bed. :D *
But before I go… ;)
“I don’t think there’s any significant amount of sentiment for what Singer said, and personhood and rights have been attributed at birth in most societies, all over the world, for thousands and thousands of years. Not much chance of stuff changing there.”
Well, it’s a slippery slope there, Doug. Infanticide has been practiced in many societies, too. Oh, wait…I think dumping an aborted child born alive into a bucket of water or bleach would qualify as infanticide. Why not go the extra mile and give the parents a few weeks or months to decide (especially if the child isn’t practically perfect in every way)?
“If anything, I’d say it will be sheer population pressure itself that results in a lowering of the valuation put on life.”
We’ve already lowered our valuation on life, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Ahoy Kel,
Thanks for replying. I’ll be back later.
Dawg
“Kel, you’re stretching things by saying “person,” there. There’s no agreement that it applies and of course the abortion debate exists in large part due to the fact that society says “not a person,” in the first place.”
Well, Doug, thanks for dancing around my entire statement because you didn’t care for the word I used. :D I’m going to take your hand wringing over the pregnant woman’s feelings as a “yes.”
I didn’t dance around it, it’s just a given. Yes, certainly, “human” applies, and I’ve never said differently. It is not that human DNA is present that is at argument. When you get to the concept of personhood, then it most certainly is.
….
“I think you don’t suffer nearly as much from legal abortion as the pregnant woman may suffer if denied an abortion. The unborn are not suffering at all, here. I also realize that can be argued too, but to a point in gestation I think it’s reasonable to say “no suffering.””
Pregnant women can suffer when they obtain abortions, as well (despite the denial and all the jabs at childbirth on this site)…suffering is a part of life, regardless. We are continually making decisions to try and avoid suffering in our own lives, but often we end up hurting ourselves and others in the process, especially when we make those decisions without regard to anyone else. Gotta look out for number one and all that. It leads to an empty existence, but eh, what do we care? It’s OUR RIGHT!
I’ve never said that zero women suffer from having abortions. But no, in no way does having an abortion necessarily lead to “an empty existence.” It’s not the same experience for all women, not at all, and by far – the majority of women who have abortions are glad they did, and would do the same thing again in similar circumstances. If a woman thinks that too much suffering is involved in having an abortion, then she’s not likely to. There are no guarantees, no, but that’s no reason to take away people’s freedom to make the choices.
…..
I would have to say that a woman who becomes pregnant (and doesn’t want to be) has a tough road either way…but one way leads to the death of another human and one does not. One choice is made in fear, desperation, or selfishness, and the other is not (and she doesn’t have to raise the child herself, after all). But let’s take what we think is the “easy road.” I mean, that’s what we teach our kids, right? “Take the easy way out, it builds character!” No? Hmm…
You’re generalizing incorrectly. In no way are all women, even most women, who have abortions doing it “in fear” or in “desperation.” Many know that at least at the time they’re just not suited to having kids. There has been plenty of testimony right on this site, let alone elsewhere, that, paraphrasing, “It was the right thing to do at the time,” etc.
…..
Side note: I have laughed when I’ve heard PCers say “Your God is pro-choice.” In many cases, I think they must be referring to the scripture where the Lord says “Now I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses…now choose life, that you and your children may live.” They shout, “SEE? SEE!? He says to CHOOSE! Pro-choice.” LOL People will do and say anything to make their selfish decisions seem acceptable to them. Rationalizing is rampant.
I don’t think that is a good argument, no. However, since nothing is said in the Bible about aborton, and since abortion has been known, desired by some, and practiced from well before Biblical times through Biblical times, it’s farfetched to think the writers of the Bible had objections to it, and just somehow neglected to mention it. You look at the detailed Mosaic law, and hey – if abortion was looked down upon, it’d have been noted.
And of course any all-knowing God knows exactly who is going to have an abortion and when. I’ve heard people speak of tragic deaths, such as in wartime, as “God’s will.” “It was God’s will, however hard it is to understand, that Joe Blow shot Elmer.” Well, then same deal for deciding to end an unwanted pregnancy.
……
“The unborn are not suffering at all, here. I also realize that can be argued too, but to a point in gestation I think it’s reasonable to say “no suffering.””
Yes, it can be argued. ;) Do you know this for a fact, Doug, that the unborn do not suffer? Do you think that if we could do brain scans on babies about to be aborted (as if THAT would ever happen), that we might be surprised by what we find, just as we’ve been surprised recently by research on brain scans of PVS patients that have detected the presence of PAIN and other types of awareness? And IF by chance, we could say with an amount of certainty that there IS fetal pain, would it change anything?
I didn’t think so. It wouldn’t matter, because we mustn’t allow an inconvenient child to get in the way of our goals and dreams. Then we might have to suffer a little, and goodness knows, any amount of suffering just sucks! And besides, stretch marks don’t look good in bikinis.
Wrong. It does matter to me. If there was good evidence that a 22 weeker is sentient, then I’d not favor elective abortion at that time, versus viability, the third trimester, etc.
I cannot prove the negative that a fetus is totally insensate at a given time, but neither can it be proved that a blade of grass or a rock is, either. What I said is true – that to a point in gestation, even if we agree on the exact time, there is no suffering. Does the fertilized egg “suffer” in a conscious way if it fails to implant, etc.?
……
“I don’t think there’s any significant amount of sentiment for what Singer said, and personhood and rights have been attributed at birth in most societies, all over the world, for thousands and thousands of years. Not much chance of stuff changing there.”
Well, it’s a slippery slope there, Doug. Infanticide has been practiced in many societies, too. Oh, wait…I think dumping an aborted child born alive into a bucket of water or bleach would qualify as infanticide. Why not go the extra mile and give the parents a few weeks or months to decide (especially if the child isn’t practically perfect in every way)?
Because nobody or almost nobody wants to. Yes, at times infanticide has been legal. If anything, I’d say that it’s population pressure itself that will result in such changes coming in the future.
Meanwhile, it’s really not a “slippery slope.” Societies have by and large been the same since the beginning of recorded time on this. There are always bad things happening to some babies and kids, somewhere, just as there are to older people. It is human nature to attribute personhood and right to life at birth, to a huge extent.
……
“If anything, I’d say it will be sheer population pressure itself that results in a lowering of the valuation put on life.”
We’ve already lowered our valuation on life, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
No, you’re coming up against the fact that it’s not necessarily “devaluation,” but rather that positive value isn’t always seen to be there, in the first place. Not all pregnancies are wanted.
I read a few years back that “guns are in the streets in 2/3 of the world’s countries.” Don’t know if that was true then and doubt if it is now, but it is fact that things are different from what we’re used to in North America, western Europe, and the other “developed” nations. Life is cheap, comparitively, due to circumstances, the culture, etc.
China felt it had to do something about population pressure, so rules were made, like “one child per family.” They have created other problems by this, no question about it, but it’s a good illustration of how it is the sheer numbers of people that often leads to lesser value being put on the individual life, etc.
” But no, in no way does having an abortion necessarily lead to “an empty existence.””
I was actually referring to my “looking out for number one” comment. Sorry I didn’t make that clearer.
“And of course any all-knowing God knows exactly who is going to have an abortion and when. I’ve heard people speak of tragic deaths, such as in wartime, as “God’s will.” “It was God’s will, however hard it is to understand, that Joe Blow shot Elmer.” Well, then same deal for deciding to end an unwanted pregnancy.”
Well, here is where I think I may differ…I don’t actually believe that. Man has a will and God would have had to relinquish some of his all-knowing, omnipotent power in order to allow us to choose for ourselves which decisions we will make. Can God work through and in spite of our actions? I believe so. But does he CAUSE all of our actions? Obviously not. Is it God’s perfect will that a drunk driver would come out of nowhere and kill a young woman who had her whole life ahead of her? No. The very concept of death isn’t even God’s perfect will.
I recommend reading a book such as “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis, if you haven’t already, or “Letters From a Skeptic” by Gregory Boyd. That’s more of where I am coming from in my views. I think people (even professed Christians) misunderstand a lot of what Christianity actually is.
Kel, I first look to the idea of an all-knowing God. If our future is known, to “anybody,” then we are predestined and don’t have free will.
Personally, I don’t think that’s the way it is, i.e. I do think we have free will, thus there’s no all-knowing God.
Doug, it’s really not that cut and dried. (And I know you see different “nuances” in the abortion issue…why not on the issue of God?)
And I never said that God was all-knowing in the sense that many think He is. I take more of the position put forth in the two books I mentioned. (And there’s no way I could explain that position here…after all, there are two BOOKS written about it, and my posts are long enough as it is! :D )
With free will comes the choice to do what is moral or what is immoral. I do not believe that morality depends strictly on whatever we personally decide or on what society decides.
I think Lewis and Boyd put forth their arguments pretty clearly in their books. I’m no theologian, but I’d have to say they’re pretty logical.
He needs to spend the rest of his life in prison. Jesus may have forgiven him, but he still has a temporal debt to work off.
Kel: Doug, it’s really not that cut and dried. (And I know you see different “nuances” in the abortion issue…why not on the issue of God?)
Kel, there could be any amount of nuances to God or gods, but if any being knows our future (whether we do or not) then we really are predestined – if not then our future would not be knowable.
Lewis and Boyd do make certain assumptions in their writings. I’m not saying that’s “bad” – we all do it (make unprovable assumptions and proceed from there). What I disagree with is the pretense that the conclusions must apply to others who don’t share the same beliefs.