Is it hateful and intolerant to disagree?

[charles_hamm]

Recently on another thread the term “bigot� has been used frequently to describe Christian views on homosexuality being a sin. Per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary a bigot is:

A person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

My question is not about using this or any other derogatory term against another person since that should not be done, serves no purpose in a debate and is against the rules. My question is:

If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

So we all can try to use the same definitions for the term, Merriam-Webster defines tolerance as:
A: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own
B: the act of allowing something

If you say “yes� it constitutes hatred please list which one(s) it is toward and please explain why you believe it constitutes hatred. The same goes if you answer “yes� to intolerance.

If you answer “no� please explain why it doesn’t.

Just so we are clear, I am not labeling anyone as a bigot, hateful or intolerant or any other derogatory term. This is my first time to start a topic, so if I have left something out or could have worded my question better let me know.

Thanks.

[czyz]

charles_hamm wrote...

The earliest a heartbeat can be heard is around 35 days.

Heard is one thing, seeing is another. The heartbeat of a fetus can be detected much sooner than 35 days, and I surmise that most abortions are obtained between the 30-90 day period. So again I ask is it morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person or should society do whatever it can to protect that person.

Abortion in my opinion is akin to the Nazi's killing developmentally disabled people because they were deemed an inconvenience on society. Then the Nazi's decided to kill gypsys and Jews because of they were deemed unfit for society. The Nazi's would have killed Slavic people (the next group on the list) but for the end of the war. Once society deems one group unfit to live its a matter of time before you and me are included in that list.

This is not a religious issue. It is an ethical issue.

[czyz]

charles_hamm wrote...

If a person, Christian or non-Christian expresses an opinion that homosexuality is a sin (or if you don’t believe in the concept of sin replace the word with morally wrong); does that opinion constitute a hatred of the person, the action or neither one? Does that opinion constitute intolerance of the person, the action or neither? Should Christians or non-Christians who do not support homosexuality be required to show tolerance toward the person? What about the action?

Good questions. It is my opinion that one can disagree with homosexuality but not judge the person. Judging is saying you are wrong and I am right, and that leads to many problems. While I am straight and do not agree with a homosexual lifestyle, I have several close friends who are gay and they are great human beings.

Tolerance is a term meaning I'm judging you but I'll put up with you. I would not want to be tolerated but accepted as a human being even though you may not agree with certain aspects of my life.

[charles_hamm]

charles_hamm wrote...

The earliest a heartbeat can be heard is around 35 days.

Heard is one thing, seeing is another. The heartbeat of a fetus can be detected much sooner than 35 days, and I surmise that most abortions are obtained between the 30-90 day period. So again I ask is it morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person or should society do whatever it can to protect that person.

You are correct. Please don't take it that I support abortion because I most certainly do not. My time frame is only what's accepted. The heartbeat is detectable around 20 days old, which may be only a few days after a woman misses her cycle. The answer to your question is no it's not morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person.

Abortion in my opinion is akin to the Nazi's killing developmentally disabled people because they were deemed an inconvenience on society. Then the Nazi's decided to kill gypsys and Jews because of they were deemed unfit for society. The Nazi's would have killed Slavic people (the next group on the list) but for the end of the war. Once society deems one group unfit to live its a matter of time before you and me are included in that list.

Unfortunately your analogy here is dead on. Abortions, at least in my opinion are done for convenience these days and only serve to make it easier for the woman having the abortion.

This is not a religious issue. It is an ethical issue.

Thank you for saying this. This should be one issue where religious and non-religious individuals can agree, but it seems like that will not happen easily.

[Bust Nak]

It seems to me that if an error be made, the error must be on the side of innocence and life. Doing otherwise is a callous and odious act inflicted upon our offspring and fellow creatures.

But we do err on the side of innocence and life. That's why we selected 24 weeks as the limit for abortion based on what we know about fetal development.

[Goat]

You are correct. Please don't take it that I support abortion because I most certainly do not. My time frame is only what's accepted. The heartbeat is detectable around 20 days old, which may be only a few days after a woman misses her cycle. The answer to your question is no it's not morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person.

Why is the heartbeat the magical woo to worry about? Why do you think that makes it 'special"?

Tugging at emotional strings???

[charles_hamm]

You are correct. Please don't take it that I support abortion because I most certainly do not. My time frame is only what's accepted. The heartbeat is detectable around 20 days old, which may be only a few days after a woman misses her cycle. The answer to your question is no it's not morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person.

Why is the heartbeat the magical woo to worry about? Why do you think that makes it 'special"?

Tugging at emotional strings???

When we check to see if a person is alive, we check for a pulse, bloodflow. That is what makes it 'special'.

Why, does a heartbeat make you emotional?

[Goat]

You are correct. Please don't take it that I support abortion because I most certainly do not. My time frame is only what's accepted. The heartbeat is detectable around 20 days old, which may be only a few days after a woman misses her cycle. The answer to your question is no it's not morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person.

Why is the heartbeat the magical woo to worry about? Why do you think that makes it 'special"?

Tugging at emotional strings???

When we check to see if a person is alive, we check for a pulse, bloodflow. That is what makes it 'special'.

Why, does a heartbeat make you emotional?

No.. .. but there is somethign known as 'brain death'.. where someone can be physically alive with a heart beat, yet be a total vegetable.

However, invoking 'heart beat' sounds like an appeal to emotionalism, rather than to logic, considering what we know about fetal development.

There is also something known as 'viability'. .. when a fetus could potentially live outside the womb, although with a high potential of developmental problems.

[charles_hamm]

You are correct. Please don't take it that I support abortion because I most certainly do not. My time frame is only what's accepted. The heartbeat is detectable around 20 days old, which may be only a few days after a woman misses her cycle. The answer to your question is no it's not morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person.

Why is the heartbeat the magical woo to worry about? Why do you think that makes it 'special"?

Tugging at emotional strings???

When we check to see if a person is alive, we check for a pulse, bloodflow. That is what makes it 'special'.

Why, does a heartbeat make you emotional?

No.. .. but there is something known as 'brain death'.. where someone can be physically alive with a heart beat, yet be a total vegetable.

However, invoking 'heart beat' sounds like an appeal to emotionalism, rather than to logic, considering what we know about fetal development.

There is also something known as 'viability'. .. when a fetus could potentially live outside the womb, although with a high potential of developmental problems.

That is true about brain death, but we still consider them to be a person.

Why is that? It is a measuring stick used in medicine to determine whether a person is alive or dead. What is wrong with using it here?

I thought pro-abortion people abandoned the 'viability' argument a long time ago. If we use viability as the point in time where a person is capable of surviving outside the mothers womb, then we must continually update that point as medical advances happen. If we don't allow medical advances into the conversation then infanticide becomes legit since newborns are totally dependant on someone else for life.

[Goat]

You are correct. Please don't take it that I support abortion because I most certainly do not. My time frame is only what's accepted. The heartbeat is detectable around 20 days old, which may be only a few days after a woman misses her cycle. The answer to your question is no it's not morally ethical to kill an innocent or vulnerable person.

Why is the heartbeat the magical woo to worry about? Why do you think that makes it 'special"?

Tugging at emotional strings???

When we check to see if a person is alive, we check for a pulse, bloodflow. That is what makes it 'special'.

Why, does a heartbeat make you emotional?

No.. .. but there is something known as 'brain death'.. where someone can be physically alive with a heart beat, yet be a total vegetable.

However, invoking 'heart beat' sounds like an appeal to emotionalism, rather than to logic, considering what we know about fetal development.

There is also something known as 'viability'. .. when a fetus could potentially live outside the womb, although with a high potential of developmental problems.

That is true about brain death, but we still consider them to be a person.

Yes, we consider them a person. That's why we are allowed to disconnect the life support, because they are a person.

Actually, I consider them DEAD. .. it's just their body is being kept functioning artificially.

[czyz]

Bust Nak wrote...

But we do err on the side of innocence and life. That's why we selected 24 weeks as the limit for abortion based on what we know about fetal development.

No, that is a transitory time period. Once a new life is detected it has the rights afforded under the Constitution in my opinion.