Abortion stances

[Ken Carman]

.



It is a well know fact that legal definitions don't have to be based on the shared meaning of a word. Even going beyond that


The "reasoning" in this paragraph comes off as total gibberish to me, so I can't comment, except to say that if something isn't based on a "shared meaning" then it would be gibberish, legally or otherwise.

When have I suggested that anyone do anything illegal?

I find much of this is the same reason people use for breaking the law, pouring blood over records, breaking and entering, shooting or threatening clinics. If you can hold your own sense of "moral law," or some religious based, commonly held sense and not delve into such activities I admire your restraint.

Well, moral law as legally defined by God.

Paraphrasing Tom Paine, you have every right to that belief and I would defend your right to it. Everyone has a right to believe in God, Gods or... not. I would defend their rights too. As soon as someone attempts to force it on others legally, or by other means, I normally would get off the boat and cross over to the other side. On a rare occasion I might stand with those who do such things, understanding that I'm part of a revolutionary movement and sometimes revolutionaries get hung.

The next two paragraphs you typed I basically would havwe the same response.

Legality is the least important part of the discussion.

As far as the thread as a whole, I would somewhat agree. As far as the definition of "murder," I disagree. It's the most important part. Murder is legally defined, and has been long before Christianity or even Judaism. (Unless, of course, you are a biblical literalist. Then, once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That would probably take us way off what the mods would consider "topic.") In your church (or faith) murder may be defined otherwise. If you wish to define it as such, or any other way, fine. We just disagree.

When a nation's laws, the actions of its leaders, and the beliefs of its people are not in accordance with the moral law, it is on a very short road to devastation. A peaceful society is not possible without morality.

Hmmm, once again, I disagree. Whose moral law, what you and perhapsa others have decided is moral law? The Roman Empire lasted quite a while in conflict with many "moral laws" that most religions accept. I've heard people argue that the sam about the USA. Once again, this could get us into a whole new thread and tie up this topic. Meanwhile, many groups of faith-based settlers were exterminated by Native-Americans, weather conditions, "acts of God (irony)," wolves, bears and who knows what else. Of course, that depends upon your definition of "devastation."

Stalin legally murder millions of people, are saying that his actions are right or wrong? To make a statement that something is right or wrong is to make a moral judgement. Murder, as act defined by moral law is under the jurisdiction of the authority that instituted the law. Just as man can not change the laws of physics, he can change the moral law.

It was wrong, but once again I don't accept "moral law" as THE basis for "the law."
What he did was legal, under laws a set up under his corrupt administration, and past corrupt administrations. As I have said, sometimes people must stand up for the moral side over the legal one, but that doesn't mean the two are one in the same. "Moral law" is your construct, and the construct of various faiths over the history of humanity. They don't always use the same materials to build this consrtuct, but they often are similar. Sometimes law mirrors various constructs. Sometimes it does not. But unless we are talking theocracy, the connection is not more important than the law itself.

What stage of life a person is at has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a human being or not.

Disagree. The sperm is not "human." The zygote is not "human." The fetus is closer to human, but still forming.

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: castille I'm pro-death and anti-choice, so I'm a bit torn over whether I should support or reject abortion.

So should I put you down in the "Kill them all and let God (Zeus, no one, whatever...) sort them out" column? :)

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: Ken Carman . It is a well know fact that legal definitions don't have to be based on the shared meaning of a word. Even going beyond that The "reasoning" in this paragraph comes off as total gibberish to me, so I can't comment, except to say that if something isn't based on a "shared meaning" then it would be gibberish, legally or otherwise. When have I suggested that anyone do anything illegal? I find much of this is the same reason people use for breaking the law, pouring blood over records, breaking and entering, shooting or threatening clinics. If you can hold your own sense of "moral law," or some religious based, commonly held sense and not delve into such activities I admire your restraint. Well, moral law as legally defined by God. Paraphrasing Tom Paine, you have every right to that belief and I would defend your right to it. Everyone has a right to believe in God, Gods or... not. I would defend their rights too. As soon as someone attempts to force it on others legally, or by other means, I normally would get off the boat and cross over to the other side. On a rare occasion I might stand with those who do such things, understanding that I'm part of a revolutionary movement and sometimes revolutionaries get hung. The next two paragraphs you typed I basically would havwe the same response. Legality is the least important part of the discussion. As far as the thread as a whole, I would somewhat agree. As far as the definition of "murder," I disagree. It's the most important part. Murder is legally defined, and has been long before Christianity or even Judaism. (Unless, of course, you are a biblical literalist. Then, once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That would probably take us way off what the mods would consider "topic.") In your church (or faith) murder may be defined otherwise. If you wish to define it as such, or any other way, fine. We just disagree. When a nation's laws, the actions of its leaders, and the beliefs of its people are not in accordance with the moral law, it is on a very short road to devastation. A peaceful society is not possible without morality. Hmmm, once again, I disagree. Whose moral law, what you and perhapsa others have decided is moral law? The Roman Empire lasted quite a while in conflict with many "moral laws" that most religions accept. I've heard people argue that the sam about the USA. Once again, this could get us into a whole new thread and tie up this topic. Meanwhile, many groups of faith-based settlers were exterminated by Native-Americans, weather conditions, "acts of God (irony)," wolves, bears and who knows what else. Of course, that depends upon your definition of "devastation." Stalin legally murder millions of people, are saying that his actions are right or wrong? To make a statement that something is right or wrong is to make a moral judgement. Murder, as act defined by moral law is under the jurisdiction of the authority that instituted the law. Just as man can not change the laws of physics, he can change the moral law. It was wrong, but once again I don't accept "moral law" as THE basis for "the law." What he did was legal, under laws a set up under his corrupt administration, and past corrupt administrations. As I have said, sometimes people must stand up for the moral side over the legal one, but that doesn't mean the two are one in the same. "Moral law" is your construct, and the construct of various faiths over the history of humanity. They don't always use the same materials to build this consrtuct, but they often are similar. Sometimes law mirrors various constructs. Sometimes it does not. But unless we are talking theocracy, the connection is not more important than the law itself. What stage of life a person is at has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a human being or not. Disagree. The sperm is not "human." The zygote is not "human." The fetus is closer to human, but still forming.

If you have no conecpt of morality, you have no basis to say "this is wrong." Isn't that what the law does? Theocracy, autocracy, democracy....whatever. You can call a thing whatever you wish, but you can't change what it does by just changing the name. The definition of a fruit would place a tomato in that category, but legally it is a vegetable. Does calling it a vegetable change what it is? If whatever you dislike about a theocracy is wrong, it is wrong because those particular acts you dislike are wrong, not because of how they are labelled.

And again, I see no reason why you are bringing up people breaking the law. Who has defended or advocated people breaking the law? And, for that matter, if the "right to choose" is so important why don't you value the right to choose that?

If a poor man and a rich man start to foolishly spend all of their money with no thought to the future, the poor man will be bankrupt faster, but would you argue that the rich man not being bankrupt yet disproves that spending with no savings leads to bankruptcy?

[Starboy]

I am for allowing women to remove whatever is in their womb that is not a baby. I am not for aborting babies. Okay, that is the simple part. Now the hard part. When is what is in the womb a baby?

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

At conception. Any other line drawn will be arbitrary.

[Ken Carman]

If you have no conecpt of morality, you have no basis to say "this is wrong."

Other than perhaps a personal attack, I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course I have a sense and a concept of morality. I just don't have your "sense of morality," or agree with your "concepts," apparently."

Theocracy, autocracy, democracy....whatever. You can call a thing whatever you wish,

"and again," you're speaking gibberish. Translator please! Now where did I put that universal translator. Perhaps it's my fault. Oh well...

And again, I see no reason why you are bringing up people breaking the law. Who has defended or advocated people breaking the law? And, for that matter, if the "right to choose" is so important why don't you value the right to choose that?

Apparently you missed the reference to those who take what you consider "moral law" and go off the edge. I was complimenting you on your restraint. If I held such an opinion I would be so outraged by what I consider violations of "moral law" I might be tempted. I'd have to be in that position to know what I would actually do.

Because that's an apples and oranges comparison. If a woman decides what happens to something growing inside them the rightness or wrongness of that decision is something she will have to live with. But I won't wind up at the other end of an anti-abortion protestors gun, or a cop won't wind up on the other end of my gun in the example I gave or...

Unless of course you believe the fetus is of the same worth, value (or more) than those who are already born. This is where we disagree.


If a poor man and a rich man start to foolishly spend all of their money with no thought to the future...

Huh, what? This relates to the conversation... how?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman At conception. Any other line drawn will be arbitrary.

Why isn't conception arbitrary? It is not as if the sperm and egg are dead.

Starboy

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman At conception. Any other line drawn will be arbitrary.

I don't find birth "arbitrary." Neither do the doctors, the mother, many fathers, the law or just about anyone else involved in the process. In fact if the anti-choice folks are correct about the nature of a fetus before birth, if they feel as much as they claim, then neither does the new born baby.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Starboy Why isn't conception arbitrary? It is not as if the sperm and egg are dead.

The sperm and the egg are alive just like amoebas.

Conception is when a human life begins. That's anything but arbitrary.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman The sperm and the egg are alive just like amoebas. Conception is when a human life begins. That's anything but arbitrary.

So? At conception all you have is a single cell. A cell not all that different from any other cell in your body. How does that make it human?

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

It is a human by definition. It has a full set of chromosomes, and will develop into a conscious adult.

[Starboy]

So every cell in you body is a human? An appendectomy is an abortion?

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Ummm.. no. There's not a cell in my body that will develop into a human being.

[Starboy]

It is the same DNA. It is no different from a freshly fertilized cell other than what is in the rest of the cell. Is that what is human? And what would you do if a way was discovered to turn any human cell into a completely undifferentiated stem cell. Then every cell in your body would be human by your definition.

Starboy

[Starboy]

As a matter of fact just the other day I was reading about the discovery of egg stem cells and they can be engineered to produce egg clone cells. No conception. What then?

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Starboy It is the same DNA. It is no different from a freshly fertilized cell other than what is in the rest of the cell. Is that what is human?

I suppose so.

Quote by: Starboy And what would you do if a way was discovered to turn any human cell into a completely undifferentiated stem cell. Then every cell in your body would be human by your definition.

No, it would only be human if you used the process on it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman No, it would only be human if you used the process on it.

What are you talking about. These cells could be engineered to produce fully function undifferentiated stem cells with a full set of genes. A biological human clone creature. No conception. What then? If a female was altered to produce such cells she would not need a man to have a baby. No conception. What then? If you harvest her egg cells would that be an abortion?

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Starboy What are you talking about. These cells could be engineered to produce fully function undifferentiated stem cells with a full set of genes. A biological human clone creature. No conception. What then? If a female was altered to produce such cells she would not need a man to have a baby. No conception. What then? If you harvest her egg cells would that be an abortion?

Well, that seems like a no-brainer. Don't alter a woman like that!

[Starboy]

Nature is in the process of doing it as we speak. The Y chromosome is going away buddy. Creatures that reproduce from a single sex are nothing new. There is nothing magical about conception and becoming a human being.

Starboy

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Starboy Nature is in the process of doing it as we speak. The Y chromosome is going away buddy. Creatures that reproduce from a single sex are nothing new. There is nothing magical about conception and becoming a human being.

That's... a little abstract. I don't see what the hell it has to do with this issue.