Posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
Fair enough.
I hereby grant you official permission to have a differing opinion.
:)
Very gracious of you, thanks...see you in the forums...:)
So you can't produce the facts, you just decided to make that unsubstantiated post that the majority of citizens were eager.
In recent years, the extent of local collaboration with the Nazis in eastern Europe has become more apparent. Historian Alan Bullock writes: “The opening of the archives both in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe has produced incontrovertible evidence [of] ... collaboration on a much bigger scale than hitherto realized of Ukrainians and Lithuanians as well as Hungarians, Croats and Slovaks in the deportation and murder of Jews.”[23] Historians have been examining the question “Was the Holocaust a European Project?” Historian Dieter Pohl has estimated that more than 200,000 non-Germans “prepared, carried out and assisted in acts of murder.” That is about the same number as Germans and Austrians. Historian Götz Aly has concluded that the Holocaust was in fact a “european project that cannot be explained solely by the special circumstances of German history.” [24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_(responsibility)#Other_states
I still don’t see 51% nor the proof of eagerness.
I give up. There are no statistics from the period, as the Nazis for some reason didn’t allow pollsters to operate in the countries they occupied.
There is also the slight difficulty that people who expressed any disagreement with Nazi policy tended to become very dead, so most people were just a little unlikely to express such opposition openly.
Come to think of it, you made the initial claim that there would have been massive open resistance to Nazi attempts to murder Jews in situ and that this was a more important factor in the decision to set up death camps than resistance from Wehrmacht officers to using the Army in such a role. Why don’t you come up with some documentation for such a preposterous claim?
You got me confused with another poster.
Quite likely. Sorry.
Per #3. A body becomes “ensouled” when it draws its first breath?
This opens the way to “full birth abortion.” Just put a plastic bag over the baby’s head as he’s being born.
No breath, no soul, no murder.
Why our concepts of when human personhood begins should depend on the pre-scientific musings of ancient Hebrew priests is beyond me.
{that wasn't the logic of a majority of those priests...contra what J. Neil Schulman says...)
BTW, the Catholic Church long considered human life to begin at “quickening,” when the mother becomes able to feel the baby moving. Their change of this position was based on better scientific understanding of the pregnancy process.
Not only the Catholic Church, but the Jewish/Christian writer of the 1st Century, a Medical Doctor no less, Dr. Luke, thought so.
"But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that what the Lord has said to her will be accomplished!" (New Testament bible, Luke 1:44, 45)
(Only persons leap for joy....blobs of protoplasm could care less....)
Also King David,the great hero/poet/king of Jewish history, writing in the Psalms around 1000 BCE proclaims:
"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well. " (Psalm 139:13, 14)
How sad it is when someone with a marvelous religious heritage abandons it for modern secularist sirens...
Look at the philosophers that influenced the climate in which the constitution was written. Concepts of justice were founded in divine law, written law, common law. Divine law drew from Christian principles. Ask yourself, what is justice and where does it come from during that time? Forget about your diagrams. Who created the concept of inalienable rights? What is a right? Where did such rights come from?
carmody wrote:
“You’ve declared unborn babies have no soul based on your personal belief and then use that belief to justify abortion.”
I’ve done no such thing. The burden on a person using religious premises to outlaw abortion is to prove by that a soul is present. Whether or not a majority interprets their religion’s scripture or church fathers as supporting their view, those who disagree should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority. Rights are individual, not collective.
You don’t want to have an abortion you have the right not to have one. The individual conscience of someone who disagrees with you should have no less standing under any theory of human rights.
Your right to decide a fetus is human rests only with you and your life. Your opinion is binding on no one else.
“Just curious. Absent a police force paid by taxes, how are the free market investigators paid?”
I see. You favor robbing Peter to Pay for Paul’s protection. Good to know there are socialists here on Free Republic.
“Most crimes are committed against poor people, who don’t have the money to pay for an investigation.”
Let’s compromise and give the poor gun stamps.
Republic of Texas wrote:
“If you aren’t sure, then NOT killing the baby seems to be the prudent choice. If you aren’t sure and still kill the baby because you THINK the soul hasn’t entered yet, you are simply a murderer with a good rationalization.”
If you’re not sure, where do you get the balls to impose your guesstimate on others by force of law?
The American position is individual freedom of conscience because one man’s opinion is another man’s snort of derision.
Human rights adhere to self-conscious beings capable of making volitional moral choices.
How these beings got that way is a matter of debate between those who believe in creation and those who believe it happened by a series of natural accidents.
I believe in both. God created the universe and natural law did the rest ... with a little Divine tweaking once in a while.
But you are the most stiff necked stubborn and thick headed.
Your people, whoever they might be, are obviously inferior.
Learn contractions.
Did God give us free will or did we?
What exactly would you say He tweaked?
Thanks for the meaningful discussion.
I merely asked a question about how certain generally thought to be necessary services would be funded.
You then jumped to the conclusion that I’m in favor of one particular method of funding.
If the government determines there is no soul or God (separation of church and state) then there is no justification to punish or outlaw any murder except those that the government determines as a crime against a secular society. And that’s where the ACLU & the Progressives are taking us.
Where no soul exists no crime exists whether you are a fetus growing older or a 45 year old (still growing) or an 85 year old (still growing). If you are a drain on societies resources a soul-less government can vote to end your life.
And the debate over abortion is pivotal to this argument. If the government’s default position is no-soul then abortion is lawful. If the government’s default position is no-God, then ending a human life at any stage of it’s biological growth is also lawful. Death panels are a real possibility for families (2 child limit), people with disabilities, and the elderly. No God - no crime.
Not everyone here is of such “superior intellect” as you.
After all, this is just a place where “the grassroots of conservatism gather and champion causes which further conservatism in America."
I guess punctuation is your chosen cause.
You are so far above me!
I am so unworthy!
So very unworthy!
Lost me on #3, a fetus is alive as soon as it starts to grow, that means at the moment of conception. To say it is a lie to call abortion murder is idiotic and his argument is nonsensical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.