Baby Murderer Gets Off (LOL x2 Entendre)

[Balcerzak]

Are you talking about the "religious" faction? Because nowhere in the Bible does it outlaw masturbation (or at least, not my version of Christianity. I've heard the Catholic Church has stuff like "masturbation is worse than sex with a whore", which I hope isn't true, but if it is, is that what you're referring to? I'm only assuming you're talking about Christianity since it's the most prolific religious group where I live).

Most frequently the support for a religious arguement against masturbation comes from a misreading of the sin of Onan.

[FionordeQuester]

Yeah. The whole point of that wasn't that he was doing something wrong by masturbating, the point was that he masturbated to avoid getting his brother's wife pregnant after his brother died, which therefore meant he wasn't carrying on his brother's line. It was HOW he used masturbation that was wrong. Wouldn't his property also be lost as well? I know that the economy was a land based one primarily based on inheritances from one's family.

Edited September 22, 2011 by FionordeQuester

[Aere]

To be honest, I think she should have gotten an abortion, months and months beforehand. Why give birth to a baby, only to have it killed after it's developmental stages? 2 or 3 months into a pregnancy, the baby isn't REALLY a baby yet.

If a baby can eventually be productive and good, and cure cancer in this world, there's also a chance he will become the next evil tyrant, plunging us into WWIII.

[Defeatist Elitist]

Guys, you're all missing the point here. I don't care how undeveloped the baby happens to be, it's still a growing person, and that's not something that can be decided by some arbitrary growth in it's brain cell count. You're taking his/her chance at living life and perhaps even being a good, productive person in the world.

I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying that this baby being killed isn't terrible. It's a tragedy, to be sure. Most of these people would probably even agree that she shouldn't have done what she did, and that it was wrong. What I do see is some people arguing the point that punishing this woman with a jail sentence wouldn't serve any purpose, and is thus completely pointless.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Defeatist Elitist

[Original Alear]

There are many reasons that a judge might suspend a sentence. I don't think we can comment on whether the sentence was appropriate without knowing more about the specific facts of the case.

Regardless, if she's not a danger to others and as long as she gets the help she needs to overcome her issues and become a functioning member of society, I don't think that it's necessary to send her to prison. I don't think that the purpose of punishment should be to exact revenge, or to inflict suffering on those who "deserve" it.

The judge said that it was a "clear cut case" therefore it should demand a clear cut resolution - i.e. the one determined by law. I found something indicating that all cases of female infanticide are to be answered with jail time for the infanticide, and yet this judge has overturned that in an instance of what I can only call judicial activism.

That's rather specific. Are you willing to show evidence for precisely what that exact sentence would have accomplished?

Are you willing to show evidence for precisely what not giving a harsher sentence would have accomplished? I think that maintaining the laws as they are written is important from time to time, especially when the case is "clear cut."

Alright then, let me ask you a question. Just think on death for a moment. Suppose you were just chilling out somewhere, when all of a sudden, a bunch of poisonous gas descended on you, killing you in a way where it's not over and done with in three seconds. Would you find it horrifying? If so, why? Don't argue semantics with me please, just answer the question if you don't mind.

It wouldn't horrify me since I expect the worst, and the best, having had some interesting experiences on repeated counts that have lead me to question reality. However, I would try and find a way to preserve my own life and probably fail.

Yeah. The whole point of that wasn't that he was doing something wrong by masturbating, the point was that he masturbated to avoid getting his brother's wife pregnant after his brother died, which therefore meant he wasn't carrying on his brother's line. It was HOW he used masturbation that was wrong. Wouldn't his property also be lost as well? I know that the economy was a land based one primarily based on inheritances from one's family.

So it is a sin not to carry on your brother's line?

Edited September 24, 2011 by Blue Mars

[Ragnell]

Are you talking about the "religious" faction? Because nowhere in the Bible does it outlaw masturbation (or at least, not my version of Christianity. I've heard the Catholic Church has stuff like "masturbation is worse than sex with a whore", which I hope isn't true, but if it is, is that what you're referring to? I'm only assuming you're talking about Christianity since it's the most prolific religious group where I live).

If I'm not mistaken, he's referring to the already-mentioned argument that gametes (sperm and egg) should be considered human if newly fertilized eggs are. I personally have to disagree, though, since sperm and egg are about as human as skin cells are. Both contain human DNA, yes, but neither have the natural ability to grow into a complete, unique human being. Skin cells grow into skin cells. That's about it. No matter how long the skin cells divide in natural conditions, they are never going to grow into a new person. Stem cells are a little bit different, but even still, a stem cell or cluster of stem cells can never become a person, at least as far as I am aware. As for gametes, they don't even contain a full human genome. They contain half of a person's DNA, and without significant alteration (i.e. the addition of another person's gamete), they lack the ability to develop into anything. A fertilized egg, though, has the ability to (through natural processes) become a complete human being.

Also, I am Catholic and I've never heard of such a thing, though frankly there have been a lot of Catholic theologians over the thousand and some years the church has existed, so it wouldn't be surprising if I was unaware that a couple said that at some point.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Ragnell

[eclipse]

So it is a sin not to carry on your brother's line?

Context. Always helpful.

Onan's brother died, leaving his sister-in-law a widow. By the laws during that time (which were from God, since this is coming out of the Bible), Onan had to marry her, so that his brother's line could be preserved through him. This meant that Onan had to get her pregnant. Since he didn't want his own name to be lost (as all his children through her would be in his brother's name), he went "NYEH~!", and made sure she didn't get pregnant. By doing this, he disobeyed God's law, and God struck him down.

As for the lady this topic is about. . .she's gonna have to live with this for the rest of her life. Even if she doesn't go to jail, she'll have to deal with the rest of society. Imagine trying to get a SO with this kind of publicity!

[Original Alear]

Context. Always helpful.

Onan's brother died, leaving his sister-in-law a widow. By the laws during that time (which were from God, since this is coming out of the Bible), Onan had to marry her, so that his brother's line could be preserved through him. This meant that Onan had to get her pregnant. Since he didn't want his own name to be lost (as all his children through her would be in his brother's name), he went "NYEH~!", and made sure she didn't get pregnant. By doing this, he disobeyed God's law, and God struck him down.

As for the lady this topic is about. . .she's gonna have to live with this for the rest of her life. Even if she doesn't go to jail, she'll have to deal with the rest of society. Imagine trying to get a SO with this kind of publicity!

This is getting out of context, but let's continue...

⁸ Then Judah said to Onan, "Sleep with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to raise up offspring for your brother." ⁹ But Onan knew that the child would not be his; so whenever he slept with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from providing offspring for his brother. ¹⁰ What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death also.

The laws were not coming from God, they were coming from Judah. It is true that "honor (though not follow all the commands of) thy father and mother" is a law in the 10 commandments, but the Lord killed Onan without Onan knowing that God forbid what he was doing. Moreover, the 10 commandments had not been formulated and handed down yet.

As for the lady this topic is about. . .she's gonna have to live with this for the rest of her life. Even if she doesn't go to jail, she'll have to deal with the rest of society. Imagine trying to get a SO with this kind of publicity!

She killed a significant other assigned to her by her own choices and the laws of society, which say that mothers by birth should attempt to be mothers in life, moments after he was born. I have empathy for her, but not much in the way of sympathy, except that I hope that the next chapter of her life, or the life she may well lead after death, is better than this one.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Blue Mars