The Culture of Life

Do you support what's called 'The Culture of Life' in the US? (see summary)

  • Yes, it looks fine to me.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, though I have a few reservations

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • Partly; I have many serious differences

    Votes: 2 7.4%
  • No, much of it is not acceptable to me

    Votes: 24 88.9%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

Pure

Fiel a Verdad
Joined
Dec 20, 2001
Posts
15,135
How do you feel about it as summarized below; it is a connected group of moral principles on vital issues. Apparently it was given that name by the late Pope John Paul, and picked up by the GOP leadership and GWB's speechwriters.

Given appeal to many protestants and conservative Catholics, support for a ‘culture of life’ is growing in the US, perhaps to a majority. Note the red states in the last presidential election.

Here is a summary the main principles shared by many of these persons wwho are mostly Christian, but also some Jews. There are slight different between Protestants and Roman Catholics, mainly over the death penalty, and I've tried to take account of the diffs in the list. For a common protestant position, ignore the double braces; for a common Catholic position, DELETE the phrases in double braces{{xx}}.

In cases where the laws to do not conform to the legal position below, they are to be modified, in accord with the majority will. The courts will then act accordingly and alleged 'minority rights' will be modified accordingly.


The Culture of Life: ‘Pro life’ ‘Pro family’

ABORTION
1.A fertilized egg has a right to life, even if it's NOT going to be implanted (in the course of nature).
2a. A fetus, engendered by the father in his daughter, or by rapist, has a right to life.
2b. A fetus whose survival threatens the mother’s has a right to life.
3.The fetus’ rights may be enforced through criminal sanctions. Although the authorities may choose not to prosecute the mother in cases of ignorance, youth, desperation or mental imbalance, if you counsel, abet, or procure abortions or perform them you shall be subject to the gravest civil penalties.

SUICIDE AND HASTENING DEATH
4.a You are immoral and commit a sin if you try to take your life. You have a moral obligation to live, despite your wishes and seemingly ‘good reasons’ including intolerable pain, cognitive incapacity or no long term hope.
4b You commit an illegal, wrong and sinful act in assisting in or facilitating someone’s suicide.
5. You commit a crime, as well, if you hasten anyone’s death, for whatever reason.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
{{6. You may forfeit the right to live if you’re tried and convicted, regardless of any legal or police irregularities, your mental capacity or status, or age above 10.}}

HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICES
7a The only moral and non-sinful sex is heterosexual practices inside marriage. Only if you are in such a heterosexual marriage are you in a real marriage that is be recognized in the law, and are to confer legal ‘family’ benefits for you and your children.
7b Homosexuality is immoral and sinful always, everywhere; while laws against it may not be enforced for consensual, private, acts among adults with adults, you will definitely be subject to enforcement in all other cases (adult and teen; teen and teen). If you promote it, esp. to the young, you have engaged in a crime and/or professional misconduct.
7c If you practice homosexual acts, you are properly subject to certain civil disabilities or restrictions, and these will not constitute ‘illegal discrimination’, e.g., ban from children’s parks. Certain professional or vocational limitations should apply, esp. where the profession or a course of action involves children, e.g., boy scout leadership. Certain religion restrictions may also apply, as for instance prohibition from priesthood.

SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE
8a. Sex outside marriage is the sin of fornication or adultery. Although neither one, as such, should be civil crime, your actions may subject you to professional sanctions; if you promote these acts or solicit persons to them, that may be a crime and is always immoral.

BIRTH CONTROL
8b. If you provide birth control pills, devices etc. {{to the unmarried}}, you commit a sin. If you provide them to anyone below 21, that is or should be, against the law regardless of your professed intention to address such issues of disease, AIDS etc., those being, besides pregnancy, the natural consequences of sex outside marriage.
8b. If you use of bc devices in marriage, that is immoral {{when it leads to sexual excess and other behaviour against the solemn duties of family life}}.
8c. Married partners may control size of family by natural methods, abstinence and rhythm {{or by any legal hormonal or barrier methods}}.

TEENAGE SEX
9. The best- and only moral--course is for teenagers to learn self control and in particular practice abstinence. You may be subject to professional restrictions/penalties if you advocate, encourage or facilitate teenage sexual intimacies. If teenage masturbation is not, except in excess, a sin, if you promote it to teens, that is a sin, and you may rightfully be subject to professional limitations or sanctions (e.g., loss of job as a high school teacher).

“SEX EDUCATION”
10. If you furnish—or make available--sexually explicit material, depictions or writings, including ‘sexual information’ ‘scientific facts about sex and reproduction’ to teenagers or children, even where labelled as ‘sex education,’ then, except where you are duly authorized, your actions will be construed to be promoting illicit sex among them. It is, with certain exceptions, a crime and an immoral, sinful act. Doctors and ministers are duly authorized to furnish such at the request of and on the permission of parents. Parents should be the usual source of sexual education information to the degree they consider appropriate.
-------------

Protestant and Catholic ‘Culture of Life’ are generally similar, with the Catholic position indicated by deletions of items in braces {{xxx}}
 
Last edited:
Not sure if it's relevant me commenting from 'across the pond' or not, but to me it look like something out of the dark ages! :eek:

Looks like the US is headed towards the religious fundamentalism in one hand that it is trying to wipe out with the other! :rolleyes:
 
Hey, while we're at it why don't we go back to making women on their period go out and kill two doves? It says that in the Bible just before the section on how homosexuality is wrong.
 
The 'culture of life' is not even close to a majority.

They're just so fricken loud they sound like a majority.
 
Before I sound off all hot and bothered - just tell me today's date has no connection with this thread??!! :rolleyes:
 
DwayneDibley said:
@elfin - good point! If so, I've been had!

Yeah, I'm not saying nuttin til Pure crosses her heart and hopes to die and says it's for real. ;)
 
It's for real guys, I was working on such a list for a couple days; see a preliminary attempt at 'texas style culture of life' in another thread.

But have a great day! (ours is home from school for PD day).

--
Note to RG. Support for 1-3 is not yet a majority, but for 7, there is likely one.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think the 'culture of life' only LOOKS like a majority.

The reason they can be so vocal at this time is that they have the financial conservatives in their pocket, so to speak.

Bush is doing much to undo that though...

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Frankly, the Culture of life idea is flawed at it's roots. The concepts are linked only tenuously and that link is only expoused loudly by a very small majority.

Pro Chocie people are often Anti death penalty. Similarly, people with a pro life stance may also value death with dignity laws.

The reason the Culture of life platform seems o incoherent and contradictory is because it links several issues that are, deeply personal and private matters to most people. Only a very very few will find themselves in agreement with all the precepts.
 
Pure said:
8c. Married partners may control size of family by natural methods, abstinence and rhythm {{or by any legal hormonal or barrier methods}}.


Anal?
 
hi elsol,
one thing to keep in mind is that, for instance, the American Revolution probably did not have majority support, at least at first. same for the Russian revolution.

change does not require majority actively participating.

for effectiveness, it isn't just a matter of being 'vocal' but being disciplined, dedicated, and persistent. look at the last 'get out the vote' effort in Fla.
 
They seem very shortshighted a lot of those issues, and sound very much like a fundamentalist religous manifesto to me.

I wonder how long before they start trying to ban sites like Lit for being 'immoral'? :rolleyes:

Hopefully your constitution should defend you against the worst that these fundamentalists can do!
 
Suggested addenda:

URINATION:
11. If you shake it more than three times, you're playing with it

NOCTURNAL EMISSIONS
12a. Sacrifice an unblemished heiffer at the altar as a burnt offering to the Lord.
12b. Do it it in the dark so no one shall witness your secret shame. Burn sheets, chastise self with steel-tipped flogger, pulling hair, wailing and grovelling (but don't you dare enjoy it!)

PHYSICAL CONTACT
13a. With opposite sex, constitutes the sin of covetousness
13b. With same sex, constitutes the sins of covetousness and homosexuality
13c. With self, constitutes the sin of masturbation
13d. Keep hands two feet from body at all times. Keep eyes on ground, or preferrably, in bible.

PROCREATIVE SEX
14a. If you enjoy it, you shouldn't be doing it.
14b. Your pastor or clergyman might be available to do it for you.
 
Hi Colly,
Yes, much is now called 'private,' but it's being dragged into the open, as in the Terri Schiavo case.

I think two or three basic ideas generate the list; maximize the amount of human protoplasm ('life' in any form); straight sex; control of sexual behavior and reproduction; and general 'authority' over the individual.

In support of a kind of coherence for the list--I'd like your opinion-- something like the list holds presently in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. imo.

Further, as I noticed in making the list, death penalty is just about the only major protestant-Catholic difference (and possible Christian-Jewish difference). I remind you that the RCC officially supported or allowed the (civil) death penalty up to the early 1990s. So the 'anti' stance is recent and not deeply rooted.


colly said
Frankly, the Culture of life idea is flawed at it's roots. The concepts are linked only tenuously and that link is only expoused loudly by a very small majority.

Pro Chocie people are often Anti death penalty. Similarly, people with a pro life stance may also value death with dignity laws.

The reason the Culture of life platform seems o incoherent and contradictory is because it links several issues that are, deeply personal and private matters to most people. Only a very very few will find themselves in agreement with all the precepts.
 
mab proposed**,

//PHYSICAL CONTACT
13a. With opposite sex, constitutes the sin of covetousness
13b. With same sex, constitutes the sins of covetousness and homosexuality
13c. With self, constitutes the sin of masturbation
13d. Keep hands two feet from body at all times. Keep eyes on ground,//

I'd mention that a ban on opposite sex touching, esp. in public; in particular outside of the marital bed, is part of the 'list' in, for instance Saudi Arabia.

Good points.

PS., The reason usually given for 13a is not so much covetousness, as the 'fence' principle in law; there is nearness and temptation to sin/illicit behavior; i.e. you're just steps away from fornication or adultery. So explains an Orthodox Jewish friend. This is the reason advanced by Puritan Jonathan Edwards, iirc.\
---

**I recognize there is some tongue in cheek elsewhere in your posting.
 
Last edited:
It's been a while since I brushed up on history. but do I correctly recall that there was a time when you could get the death penalty for attempted suicide?
 
Pure said:
Hi Colly,
Yes, much is now called 'private,' but it's being dragged into the open, as in the Terri Schiavo case.

I think two or three basic ideas generate the list; maximize the amount of human protoplasm ('life' in any form); straight sex; control of sexual behavior and reproduction; and general 'authority' over the individual.

In support of a kind of coherence for the list--I'd like your opinion-- something like the list holds presently in Saudi Arabia and in Iran. imo.

Further, as I noticed in making the list, death penalty is just about the only major protestant-Catholic difference (and possible Christian-Jewish difference). I remind you that the RCC officially supported or allowed the (civil) death penalty up to the early 1990s. So the 'anti' stance is recent and not deeply rooted.


colly said
Frankly, the Culture of life idea is flawed at it's roots. The concepts are linked only tenuously and that link is only expoused loudly by a very small majority.

Pro Chocie people are often Anti death penalty. Similarly, people with a pro life stance may also value death with dignity laws.

The reason the Culture of life platform seems o incoherent and contradictory is because it links several issues that are, deeply personal and private matters to most people. Only a very very few will find themselves in agreement with all the precepts.


It's coherent, within a context of establishing fear and control. If formerly private decisions are now subject to statutory limitation, then the government has erased the right to privacy, without technically trying to. If I am afraid to go to bed with someone I find attractive because she happens to be of the same gender, it stands to reason I am unlikely to rock the boat over other things. It also stands to reason if you can make morality a legislative mandate, you can craft laws that allow you to incarcerate political enemies.

On another level, if you can blend religious dogma with political action, you can establish a moral ground for legislation that would otherwise draw sever criticism.

I thik however, the culture oflife is just political speak. In terms of real politik, I think the religious right got their bone in Teri's law. 80% agreement on anything in this country is rare. 80% of the country in several polls said, keep your effing politics out of my personal decisions. It may have been a great cause to "energize the base" as the annonyamous memo declared, but only a fool plays to the 13% base while pissing off the rest of the voters. The GOP is dependant on the religious right for power, but their realy masters are big bussiness. All but the hardcore fanatics realize they over reached badly here and they are all holding their breath in fear of the fallout.

Within that context, the culture of life is a convienint fall back position. In the case of blah,blah,blah, we should err on the side of life. My personal opinion is that as politicians, in the case of end of life decisions and government, they are all gonna err ont he side of oops.
 
I think this is rediculous...

Not necessarily that they bother with it, because if the believe in it, they have the right to attempt it, but realistically, taking several different issues that you're already well-disagreed on, and blocking them together... Foolish, in my viewpoint. Someone who disagrees with Abortion won't say it's wrong to be gay simply to continue to disagree with Abortion. You can't take several minority beliefs and bunch them together and gain more support for them...

And it just gets more rediculous when they're mostly based on religion, what with our separation of Church and State joke and all...

Wait, did I say "joke"?

:rolleyes:

Q_C
 
@Hmmmmm - I do remember reading that suicide was illegal in the UK, punishable by being hung :rolleyes: , not sure about the US.
 
80% of americans endorse some kind of health care program and yet its never an electorial issue

be afraid of any large group of people that say anyone that does not believe what we believe is a criminal.

be afraid of any large group of people

The government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation(paraphrased PET)

i believe in the right to bring death to those that deserve it and remain alive
as long as we can bring life to those that deserve it and remain dead
 
I think i've figured it out.

Either the whole right to life thing is a case of complete misunderstanding of basic biological principles born as the predictable outcome of certain organized religion's war against biology over the tenet of evolution and man's inherent stupidity and lack of desire or ability to learn the full of the matter

Or/And?

Life as defined by Pro-Life is only applicable to natural objects which will be or were human without actually being human in the are since. That is metabolically active corpses, metabolically inactive corpses in the area of funeral rites, blastocytes, and pre-cognition fetuses. However, the second such things become cognitively active fully recognizable humans it becomes not only right but neccesary and praiseworthy to try and hunt them to extinction. This would explain callous attitude to the living suffering, pleasure gained in increasing the slaughter or suffering of their fellow man, their ability to look upon entire subclasses of people as subhuman (minorities, gays, women, A-rabs), willing to force a broken destitute woman to keep a baby she can neither hope to care for without starving that she didn't want, ask for, or even engage in any consentual "sinful" act to gain while simulataneously making it impossible to receive any aid or jobs that will take her "in that condition", mass bombing of people only vaguely tangentally related to the target of one's vengeance, trading people like commodities, and the big one not only taking advantage of a perceived End of Days but doing everything in their power to bring it about. It would also insinuate a type of callous evil and total lack of empathy in a sizable portion of people.


A separate theory is that there are a subset of X people who follow 2 and play on the emotions of a significantly larger group of Y people who suffer from 1. At least that's the theory that keeps my abused optimism in human potential alive.

Of course there could be 3, where enough people reject the interpretation that the soul is tied to cognition and is what separates us from animalss for a more Greater Gaia theory where souls or life-spirit is what drives all metabolically, all living things and it is cognition or human nature or human shape that make us a special case or not. But since I don't meet many heavily environmental or animal rights activist pro-lifers (but still recognize that they must exist in some subset of Z people), I doubt that's responsible for the majority of the debate especially the silly side-debates attached to the pro-life metaphilosophy.


Damn, I'm sounding like Joe aren't i? Too much bio grading

Simple synopsis: People stupid, easily manipulated by evil sadist people into killing for perceived human life in cognitively inactive pre-humans or post-humans.
 
Back
Top