?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Happy Easter to all those who celebrate it. Happy cheap eggs day for the rest of you. :) - You don't know me. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
randomposting

[ website | The Realm of Randomia ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Happy Easter to all those who celebrate it. Happy cheap eggs day for the rest of you. :) [Apr. 8th, 2007|10:23 am]
randomposting
[mood |sleepysleepy]
[music |stupid computer making stupid dying noises]

Capital punishment is our society’s recognition of the sanctity of human life. - Orrin Hatch, Republican senator from Utah, explaining his support of the death penalty.

*tilts head*

I wonder how that works out. Huh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO_JG1RyQgM

Reeves and Mortimer: Vic's Jacket -- British humour kicks my ass. I laughed SO hard.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: synthiacat
2007-04-08 03:31 pm (UTC)
So does abortion demonstrate a baby's freedom?

Hmm... Silly politicians...
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-08 03:45 pm (UTC)
Seriously. It's really not a very well thought out statement he made.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sixstringcat
2007-04-08 03:38 pm (UTC)
Haha yeah. You can't be pro-life and pro death penalty.
Logic does not allow it.
Yeah, Bush, I'm talking to you. Hypocrite.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: smadaf
2007-04-08 03:43 pm (UTC)
Well, while I don't agree with it, there is a certain 'logic' in the view that those who are subject to abortion have innocent lives while those who are subject to the death penalty do not have innocent lives.  I oppose both practices; but we must dig into the details of others' views in order to deal with them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-08 03:48 pm (UTC)
*nod* There is definitely the innocent- vs. evil bad killer person argument.

It just will never ring true to me, because it's not our right to play God and take someones life. argh.

I should have known better then to post this on Easter. lol.

I kind of dread some of the future replies, ( not because of yours at all, but I just realized the can of worms I opened)

I'm definitely having wine at easter dinner. hehe. Maybe the inevitable lj fights won't be quite so painful, with a glass of wine or three in me. hehe
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: smadaf
2007-04-09 03:20 pm (UTC)
Well, I have no gripe against you; and I've already shared my view on the issues of abortion and capital punishment.

BUT ...

You simultaneously say that, by saying "pro-life", you are NOT "referring to the anti-abortion movement", AND say that "being pro-life" means "Claiming to have sanctity for ALL human life".  So, you remove from the term "pro-life" the definition that most users of the term actually give it, and then you not only inject your own definition into the term but even attribute that definition of the term to those who are doing the "Claiming".

So, if we are to get into the broader topic of what words CAN mean, instead of what they are most often understood to mean by the culture at large:

I like tomatoes.  So I am pro-tomatoes.  Ah, but wait:  I don't like raw tomatoes.  Does this now mean I am anti-tomatoes?  Am I still pro-tomatoes?  We could say I am pro–cooked tomatoes.  We could shorten that to saying that I am pro-tomatoes.  We could say that I am anti–raw tomatoes.  We could shorten that to saying that I am anti-tomatoes.

So what do we have with "pro-life"?

1.  Being for life.  There isn't qualification to say whether this means all life, some life, 'innocent' life, 'guilty' life, eternal life, life that ends naturally, life that is killed off after a certain number of years, all human life, all life of all species, &c.

2.  "the anti-abortion movement".  Being against certain kinds of induced abortion, the commonest meaning of the term among those who use it in the U.S.

3.  "Claiming to have sanctity for ALL human life".

So we have many categories of belief that overlap in certain persons and don't overlap in others: the "I am pro-life" belief; the "I am against all abortion" belief; the "I am against some/much abortion" belief; the "I believe all human life is sacrosanct" belief; the "I believe in not shooting the head off the person who looks extremely likely to press a button, two seconds from now, that would detonate a bomb that would kill 2,000 persons, because then I would certainly be killing that person, while I am not certain about what that person would do [or] because I am against my own killing of someone else [or] whatever" belief; the "I believe in allowing people to live until they have killed someone else" belief; &c., &c., &c.

I just found it curious that you (1) took a word that, on its face, is without qualification in terms of which categories of life it supports and which ones it doesn't support, (2) specifically disregarded the meaning that most people give it (being against most induced abortion of human embryos/fetuses/babies), and then (3) specifically gave it your own meaning (considering "ALL human life" sacrosanct).

(See my next comment, where I continue this.)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: smadaf
2007-04-09 03:20 pm (UTC)
(See my previous comment, where I started this.)

Personally, I am repulsed when someone equates respect for all human life with something like allowing the death penalty, allowing abortion, allowing the killing of the retarded, &c.  I also am repulsed when someone's "respect for all human life" means standing idly by while someone else carries out mass murder and/or maiming—because I believe that, in such a situation, the appropriate action is to do whatever it takes (including violence) to stop that person from being violent on a much wider scale—and then, once that threat is halted, to treat the damaged body and mind of the person I have just injured, and to do my best to restore him to health—or, if I have gone so far as to kill him, then to treat his body with respect and return it to his loved ones.  So, I have real problems with various "anti-killing" views held by various persons.

But I also keep very much in mind the fact that, to get anywhere in the argument, I can't just point out logical fallacies in the meanings of a few hot-button words as defined by certain persons, but must instead get deeper into specific things, such as which practices people support and oppose in what circumstances, what their reasoning is, what they mean by "respect", &c.

These political terms ("pro-life", "pro-choice", "conservative", "liberal", "pro-war", "anti-war", "pacifist", all kinds of things) that so many like to restrict us to are a distraction from the real issues at hands.  They lump the variety of human thought and belief, and indeed the variety of human beings, into too few categories and hinder our progress in understanding one another and having real, strong, lasting influences on others' beliefs and actions.

Again, no gripe against you personally—but you did address the issue of what these politically charged terms and phrases mean, and did respond to my earlier comment ... so I felt somewhat compelled to say more. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: smadaf
2007-04-10 05:44 pm (UTC)

Re: wow, longest.comment.evah.

After I posted the two long ones yesterday, I was half regretting it.  Still, glad to see you understood I wasn't trying to be annoying.  No worries:  you didn't piss me off and didn't seem a troll.

I guess my original issue with the Sen. Hatch quote that started this was (1) yes, I get really irritated by his view, but (2) pointing out the discrepant logic ('we show respect for life by killing life'—???), which most kids can do, gets us only so far in changing people's minds and behavior.  So point 2 wasn't that I was annoyed that any specific person had pointed out the discrepancy again—it was just that I wished we could make more progress than latching on to just one little piece of the argument.

Again, glad you understood.  Et cetera.  [/babble]
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sixstringcat
2007-04-10 06:08 pm (UTC)

Re: wow, longest.comment.evah.

haha, dude it's OK. Let it go :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-12 02:14 am (UTC)
It's a bit of a conundrum. ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-08 03:46 pm (UTC)
People find ways to justify it for themselves but it doesn't make any sense to me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: garuparu90
2007-04-08 04:10 pm (UTC)
Happy cheap eggs day to you too ♥
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-08 04:15 pm (UTC)
Thanks! ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: maudova
2007-04-08 05:36 pm (UTC)

Some of us like to think of this day as..

The day of the very sheer dress, otherwise known as the easter dress. Where many spouses wear skimpy, body clinging, nearly transparent dresses to celebrate the day of getting it on. Yes for some of us this is a major fertility and sex holiday, the egg represents fertility and the bunny equates to the sex.

So to all of you out there celebrating what ever version of this holiday, have a good one and get it on!!


P.S. Fuck Politicians....really its clear to me many of them just need to get laid!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-08 08:55 pm (UTC)

Re: Some of us like to think of this day as..

lol, niiiice!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vulcmoto
2007-04-09 04:19 pm (UTC)

Re: Some of us like to think of this day as..

That comment totally rocked!
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: tidings
2007-04-08 09:22 pm (UTC)
I concur with your witty title! and I will defend to the death your right to say it!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-12 02:09 am (UTC)
Thank you muchly! ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: linkishmyhero
2007-04-09 12:43 am (UTC)
Haha I totally tilted my head when I read that too!
Yeah. Makes no sense..
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-12 02:12 am (UTC)
Agreed. *nod*
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: vulcmoto
2007-04-09 04:18 pm (UTC)
Orrin Hatch is your typical Repukelican. Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

There never should be a question about the value of human life once it exists. It is priceless. Period. End of discussion. The quality and enjoyment of life ebbs and flows with passing conditions, but the value of life itself never changes..

All of which raises the question of why Christians have failed so miserably in to stand up for its core values and have followed this party that hijacked Jesus blindly.

There is no less pain in the death of a handicapped person or a convicted murderer than there is for a gifted child to their families. It makes no difference.

Typical hypocritical Repuke.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: randomposting
2007-04-12 02:18 am (UTC)
It's all about who they feel Jesus would kill... lol

And by they I mean the "Christians" that take the title and act completely against everything it stands for.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)