[est1895]

When you look at the original text written either in Greek or Hebrew, "Thou Shall Not Kill" was translated wrong.  There is a translation that I think is more accurate.  Its called Young's Translation.  Please check it out Sandwich.

oh, so there are forms of killing sanctioned by Jesus? do please elaborate. (also directed at Sandwitch)

Ok Bobboau.  Let me ask you this.  Would you give your life to save someone else? If you really want to know what Jesus taught, please read the Bible for yourself.  That is what I know, but there is far more.

[Scotty]

Been a while since we'd had some good'ole home grown Christian terrorism, was beginning to get bored with the Islamic variety.

Bored by people getting murdered? America's Us vs Them culture manifests itself in another nonsympathetic twat on the internet.

Though I can appreciate the point you're trying to make here, have a warning for a directed and obvious ad hominem.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Been a while since we'd had some good'ole home grown Christian terrorism, was beginning to get bored with the Islamic variety.

Bored by people getting murdered? America's Us vs Them culture manifests itself in another nonsympathetic twat on the internet.

Though I can appreciate the point you're trying to make here, have a warning for a directed and obvious ad hominem.

Worth it

[AdmiralRalwood]

What evidence do we have that PP was his intended destination?  He started his spree in front of a Chase bank, IIRC?

First, please provide evidence of the latter. A quick google search turns up this:

The shooting began at 11:38 a.m., and the entire incident took place at the Planned Parenthood clinic, according to police.

...and the source on the Chase claim appears to be Fox News?

[Goober5000]

First, please provide evidence of the latter. A quick google search turns up this:

The shooting began at 11:38 a.m., and the entire incident took place at the Planned Parenthood clinic, according to police.

...and the source on the Chase claim appears to be Fox News?

MSNBC, ironically:
http://www.ibtimes.com/colorado-springs-planned-parenthood-shooting-officer-reported-shot-injured-scene-not-2202582

Witnesses at the scene told MSNBC the original gunshots came from near the Planned Parenthood at a Chase Bank facility.

There is also this:
http://gazette.com/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-reports-of-multiple-people-shot/article/1564419

Colorado Springs police says there is no connection to Planned Parenthood and shooting victims are getting treatment.

[AdmiralRalwood]

There is also this:
http://gazette.com/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-reports-of-multiple-people-shot/article/1564419

Colorado Springs police says there is no connection to Planned Parenthood and shooting victims are getting treatment.

You mean the thing at 1:34 PM immediately followed by this update nine minutes later?:

Police say they do not know the connection to Planned Parenthood, but that is where the 911 call came from.

...and then followed by several updates that make it clear that everything happened at Planned Parenthood?

[Goober5000]

You mean the thing at 1:34 PM immediately followed by this update nine minutes later?:

Police say they do not know the connection to Planned Parenthood, but that is where the 911 call came from.

...and then followed by several updates that make it clear that everything happened at Planned Parenthood?

This is consistent with the shooter starting at Chase Bank and then taking cover at Planned Parenthood.  In other words, according to these reports, Planned Parenthood was not the original target.  (And if PP and the bank are close by, it would not be unusual for the 911 call to come from there.)

[The E]

I don't know, I'd believe that a bank would be quicker off the mark than a Planned Parenthood clinic in calling 911 if they were attacked, but that's something only the final police report can actually tell us. Right now, everything is hearsay and eyewitness reports, and those just aren't reliable enough for us to make statements like "PP wasn't the original target" with any amount of certainty.

As an active member of the pro-life movement, I find this disgusting. Whatever motivated this shooter, his actions are the opposite of everything we stand for.

Just remember this the next time someone (*cough*Trump*cough*) calls for measures against a group of people whose only common characteristic is the religion they follow.

Also remember this the next time a Pro-Life group spreads disinformation and denounces abortions, the people who have them and the people who perform them, as babykillers without conscience or remorse.

[Dragon]

You have to start somewhere, or no argument is possible. "The good of the species is the most important" and "my own good is the most important" are reasonable starting points, but not the only starting points - and as you implied, the latter is troubling.

I generally dislike the mindset that "the other side" must be irrational. In some cases, that mindset is justifiable. This is not one of those cases.

Note, those are not "starting points" I listed. Those are conclusions, albeit of another reasoning. My starting points were scientific theories about how species develop and how societies work. I was trying to get a morality which would not be imposed on us by some superior entity, but flow naturally from established scientific facts. If you pick a predefined morality as a starting point, you could make an argument, but how to convince others to follow your morality and not their own? Well, my answer is, derive my morality from things that aren't really up to debate. Of course, this has so far landed me on one of the two above, tending towards the latter ("good of the species" is risky, as it's very hard, if not impossible, for any one human to comprehend what is best for the whole species). It's not all bad if you consider that in most cases, good of the society and even "altruism" actually has personal benefits (indeed, there's a story that the man who first found that out dedicated the rest of his life towards random act of altruism in order to prove his very depressing conclusion wrong. He ended up broke and in the gutter), so you do end up acting like a decent human being with that mindset, at least most of the time (it also goes pretty well with epicurean hedonism).

In general, assuming a particular morality weakens an argument very much, IMO. Different people have different moral systems and thus can come, in a perfectly sound way, to two opposite conclusions simply by assuming their moral system is the "proper" one. Even if you do have a morality that can be derived from some scientific theory, there is no guarantee you'll convince your opponent to think in its terms. Arguments based on a morality other than the one used by the person you're arguing with aren't going to help anyone.

[GhylTarvoke]

Alice accepts established scientific facts. Alice also thinks that "the good of the species is the most important".
Bob accepts established scientific facts. Bob also thinks that "the good of the species is not the most important".

Apparently, neither worldview contains a logical contradiction. Hence, "the good of the species is the most important" is independent from established scientific facts.

[zookeeper]

If you pick a predefined morality as a starting point, you could make an argument, but how to convince others to follow your morality and not their own? Well, my answer is, derive my morality from things that aren't really up to debate.

Convincing others to follow your idea of deriving morality from facts isn't any easier than just convincing them to follow your morality.

And of course "deriving morality from facts" doesn't fundamentally really make any sense in the first place. Neither of your hypothetical conclusions can be derived from facts.

[karajorma]

all the old testament stuff is still more or less valid

Talkin' theology you ain't qualified for, son. Even I know that. The old covenant was replaced.

@bob Repeating the same arguments that have been disproved or explained multiple times is exactly the same sort of **** you get so annoyed with Young Earth Creationists for. I've seen the whole explanation for the new covenant posted on this board enough times that I wouldn't expect ignorance of it from someone who complained about missing the religious arguments on yore.

[Bobboau]

Ok Bobboau.  Let me ask you this.  Would you give your life to save someone else?

Yes, now let me ask you a question. Would you kill to save the life of another?

@bob Repeating the same arguments that have been disproved or explained multiple times is

I'll stop using the old testament when the Christians do. There is clearly a difference of opinion on the matter among them, otherwise gay marriage wouldn't be a big deal.

[InsaneBaron]

As an active member of the pro-life movement, I find this disgusting. Whatever motivated this shooter, his actions are the opposite of everything we stand for.

Just remember this the next time someone (*cough*Trump*cough*) calls for measures against a group of people whose only common characteristic is the religion they follow.

Also remember this the next time a Pro-Life group spreads disinformation and denounces abortions, the people who have them and the people who perform them, as babykillers without conscience or remorse.

Fair enough. I think we both agree Trump's an ignorant bigot anyway.

To tell the truth, I've met surprisingly few actual, active pro-lifers (as in, willing to get off their butts and do something other than argue on the internet) who espouse the whole "babykillers" craziness. Most of the people who actually take the time to protest and pray outside abortion clinics, and try and help the women going in and out of them, stop seeing these people as babykillers and see them as what they really are: victims who deserve our help and sympathy.

Or in other words, Ghandi and MLKJr were right: hatred never solves anything.

[The E]

Hmm. "Try and help" sure looks a lot like "scream incoherently and intimidate" a lot of the time. That is, when it doesn't go to outright violence and murder.

Now, I'm sure you guys are completely peaceful and want only the best for everyone. But you're also incredibly presumptuous, in that you try to force your particular morality and standards onto people who very clearly do not share them, are not required to share them, and really do not need your kind of shaming in what is probably not a very good time in their lifes.

Hatred never solves anything. It's perfectly true. So try to accept that the place to make arguments against abortions is when a mother speaks to her doctor, or people she trusts, or her priest. Not when she's on the way to a clinic that does quite a bit more than just abortions.

[InsaneBaron]

Hmm. "Try and help" sure looks a lot like "scream incoherently and intimidate" a lot of the time. That is, when it doesn't go to outright violence and murder.

Now, I'm sure you guys are completely peaceful and want only the best for everyone. But you're also incredibly presumptuous, in that you try to force your particular morality and standards onto people who very clearly do not share them, are not required to share them, and really do not need your kind of shaming in what is probably not a very good time in their lifes.

Hatred never solves anything. It's perfectly true. So try to accept that the place to make arguments against abortions is when a mother speaks to her doctor, or people she trusts, or her priest. Not when she's on the way to a clinic that does quite a bit more than just abortions.

Something I need to make clear here, while "force" is probably the wrong word in this particular case, we can't simply sit back and let other people (the unborn) be the victims of injustice on the grounds that we shouldn't be "forcing" morality on someone. Was it presumptuous of Martin Luther King Junior to "force" people to accept racial equality? Or of abolitionists to stand against the slave trade?

This, of course, needs to be balanced with the knowledge that these people are human beings who deserve our respect, not "enemies" in some way. It's absurd to assume that everyone involved in an abortion is a monster, or even a bad person. But when an action is wrong, and it hurts innocent human beings, trying to persuade people not to do it is not presumptuous manipulation. It's rescuing the baby, and giving the mother exactly what she needs and has every right to: the truth.

[zookeeper]

In fact, pro-life people are incredibly restrained considering their beliefs. If you had clinics which would legally and without consequences kill anyone you manage to drug and drag there, many if not most people on both sides would probably accept violence as a perfectly acceptable last resort for stopping or hindering their operation. For a pro-lifer these kind of free murder clinics should be reasonably analogous with abortion clinics, and yet on the vast majority of days they actually manage to not do anything about it! And when they do something about it, it overwhelmingly takes the form of non-violent protest.

[InsaneBaron]

In fact, pro-life people are incredibly restrained considering their beliefs. If you had clinics which would legally and without consequences kill anyone you manage to drug and drag there, many if not most people on both sides would probably accept violence as a perfectly acceptable last resort for stopping or hindering their operation. For a pro-lifer these kind of free murder clinics should be reasonably analogous with abortion clinics, and yet on the vast majority of days they actually manage to not do anything about it! And when they do something about it, it overwhelmingly takes the form of non-violent protest.

Quoting for truth. That's what makes being a pro-lifer so hard: trying to protect innocent lives without dehumanizing those who disagree with you. If this shooter was a pro-lifer to begin with, it seems he failed at that.

[Turambar]

The 'enemies' are the ones using emotional terrorism and 'innocent lives' to try and strip women of their rights.

[InsaneBaron]

The 'enemies' are the ones using emotional terrorism and 'innocent lives' to try and strip women of their rights.

Assuming that by "emotional terrorism" you mean reaching out to them and trying to persuade them to let their children live... I suppose you mean I'm the enemy? Seriously, Turambar, you complain about the tactics of the Pro-Life movement, but here on HLP you're far less restrained and civil to people with different religions and views from yours than they are to. You answer a post explaining why a pro-lifer doesn't consider pro-choicers enemies by calling pro-lifers enemies. Please rethink this. I can tell you, as someone who is absolutely not your enemy, that you are never going to change anyone's mind that way.